the 





. LIBRARY OF THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 


PRINCETON, N. J. 


it re A 
ae j\A a8 v yy 
Division.nrm2r7'hN\DO f | 


cave HEY A Fe 
Se chon:... ble saat RL 

















CRITICAL AND GRAMMATICAL 


COMMENTARY 


ON 


ST. PAUL’S FIRST EPISTLE 


TO THE 


CORINTHIANS. 


BY 


CHARLES J. ELLICOTT, D.D. 


BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOL. 


j ) 
G : 
Vy " 
Vos “ ES 





yr 





Andover: 
PUBLISHED BY W. F. DRAPER. 
1889. 





PRE ACE, 


AFTER many years, numerous suspensions of the work, and 
countless interruptions while actually engaged on it, I have at 
length, by the mercy of God, completed the Commentary which 
I now bring before the Christian reader. 

As it is in continuation of Commentaries that have now 

passed through several editions, it will not be necessary for me 
to detain the reader by many prefatory comments. Still, as 
‘more than a generation has passed away since those Com- 
mentaries were published, the very lapse of time and the 
accumulation of fresh materials have imported certain changes 
into the present work on which it will be necessary for me 
briefly to speak. : 

The general plan remains precisely the same. The reader 
has before him an effort to ascertain, as far as possible, by 
means of a close and persistent consideration of the grammat- 
ical form and logical connection of the language of the original, 
what the inspired writer exactly desired to convey to the Church 
of Corinth, and to all readers of this profoundly interesting 
Kpistle. Where gtammatical and logical analysis might seem 
to prove insufficient, or leave open to us two or more possible 
interpretations, then, as in the earlier volumes of this series, 
careful use has been made of the best ancient Versions, and of 
the writings of the early expositors who used, and who wrote 
in, the language of the original. Where further aid has still 
been required, then the judgment of the best interpreters, of 
all periods, and especially of later times, has been systemati- 


4 PREFACE. 


cally referred to, preference being given to those who, like Cal- 
vin, Beza, Estius, Grotius, Bengel, and others, whether of earlier 
or more recent times, had more particularly devoted themselves 
to the interpretation of God’s Holy Word, and had acquired 
that true exegetical instinct which is more especially developed 
by practice and experience. ; 

Such was the general plan of the earlier Commentaries of 
this series, and such it remains in the present case. It differs 
from them perhaps only in this respect, that long experience 
may have brought with it a better mastery over materials, and 
may have led the writer of this Commentary respectfully to 
criticise rather than simply to follow any one of the many emi- 
nent expositors who, as it will be seen on every page, have 
been persistently consulted in the construction of this work. 
Whatever else this Commentary may be, it certainly expresses 
a judgment, formed in every case independently on gram- 
matical and contextual considerations, though constantly cor- 
rected, supplemented, and enhanced by the labors of eminent 
and helpful predecessors. Such is the general plan. 

But it will now be necessary to speak a little in detail, and 
here, in the very first place, on the Text. 

The Text has been formed after a wholly independent con- 
sideration of the critical material supplied by Tischendorf, and 
especially by Tregelles, — long experience having led me to fix 
attention more closely on the selected witnesses that appear in 
the pages of the latter critic than on the more collective tes- 
timonies that are found in the pages of the former. To 
Tischendorf every New Testament critic owes the deepest debt 
of gratitude. His last edition is a monument of faithful labor 
that will be honored as long as critical stvtdies remain, but it 
cannot be denied that some of the material, though of indis- 
putable importance in elucidating the evolution of the text, 
does sometimes confuse the student when desiring to form a 
sound critical judgment on a debatable passage. Here, tested 
witnesses, and mostly early witnesses, are increasingly ac 
knowledged by all unprejudiced minds to occupy and to hold 
a prerogative place. Such labors as those of my highly-esteemed 


PREFACE. 5 


friends, Professors Westcott and Hort, whatever be the judg- 
ment we may here and there form on some of their decisions, 
must be admitted by every fair-judging scholar to have at length 
placed New Testament criticism on a rational basis, and to 
have demonstrated to us with singular force and cogency the 
true critical value of the numerous witnesses that appear before 
us in the pages of the editions to which I have referred. 

On these tested witnesses, then, I have, nearly in every case, 
more especially relied. But I have only now and then enume- 
rated them. It is really very undesirable to bewilder the in- 
experienced student by long lists of authorities, avowedly taken 
bodily from Tregelles or Tischendorf, when really all he wants 
is an intelligent and impartial judgment formed on them by 
the expositor whom he is consulting. He is also thankful to 
know what judgment has been arrived at by the few professed 
critics that have given us editions of the sacred text. These 
two most reasonable needs on the part of the student I have 
endeavored to meet in the following way. 

In the first place, I have expressed my judgment on each 
passage under consideration, using systematically certain forms 
of expression which appear correctly to represent the actual 
facts of the case,—and thus. The term ‘ preponderating au- 
thority ’ has been applied generally to all those cases in which 
external evidence (in some cases supported also by internal 
considerations) is in favor of any given reading. That general 
term, which when used alone simply implies the dip of the 
critical balance, is qualified by the following adverbs — appar- 
ently, slightly, clearly, very clearly, greatly, very greatly, and 
in a very few instances, vast/y,— according to the state of the 
evidence under consideration. Great care has been taken in 
each case to choose the adverb consistently, but, in a matter so 
delicate and difficult as textual criticism, it is excessively hard, 
even for the same mind, so to weigh external evidence, modi- 
fied as that evidence often is by internal arguments, as to 
remain always true to itself. Still it is hoped that the cases of 
inconsistency will not be found to be more than, in an under- 
taking so very arduous as that of expressing critical judgments 


6 PREFACE. 


relatively to each other, may charitably be allowed for. The 
attempt, at any rate, has been made, for the assistance as well 
as for the information of the general student, and will perhaps 
not be found wholly useless or unprofitable. 

In the second place, I have endeavored to meet the natural 
desire to know what judgment has been arrived at by the pro- 
fessed critical editors of highest repute on each case under 
consideration. The decisions of Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tre- 
gelles, and of Westcott and Hort have consequently been speci- 
fied in every case. In addition to these, the decision of the 
Revised Version has also always been specified. For though 
the Greek Text adopted by the Revisers does not claim, and 
has never claimed, to be, strictly speaking, a critically edited 
text, it still does represent the collective judgment of twenty 
or more competent scholars, among whom were critics of high 
eminence and experience, as well as of different schools of 
critical thought.! 

What has thus been said will sufficiently explain the critical 
notes. It remains only to be said, that, for convenience, the 
third edition of Stephens, as still widely in use, and familiarly 
known (though not with technical accuracy) as the Received 
Text, has been regarded throughout as the text which has, so 
to say, been worked upon in the construction of the text which 
appears in the pages of this volume. The notes under the text 
thus indicate all departures from the text of Stephens, and the 
general grounds on which they have been made. But besides . 
these critical notes, there will be found, interspersed through- 
out the Commentary, short notices of further departures from 
the Received Text which are found in the critical editions cited 
in these pages, but which do not find a place in the text adopted 
in this volume. The only further remark that may be neces- 
sary relates to the very debatable subject of orthography. Here 


1 Jt is right to say that the plan here adopted was commenced several years 
ago, and long prior to the appearance of the singularly useful and carefully 
prepared ‘Resultant Greek Testament’ of Dr. R. F. Weymouth, which was 
published last year. So far as I have used it I have found it very accurate 
but my notes were all constructed before, by the kindness of the comoiler, this 
volume came into my hands. 


iis ACE. v4 
I have not been careful to specify every minor difference of 
spelling between the text adopted and the Received Text. The 
text adopted presents, on the whole, those forms of spelling 
which will be not unfamiliar to the student, and for which there 
is sufficient external authority. 

. In regard of the Commentary only a few remarks seem nec- 
essary, as the particulars in which it differs from the former 
volumes of this series are really very few. In matters of gram- 
matical detail, I may mention that reference is now made to 
Dr. Moulton’s excellent translation of Winer’s Grammar of the 
New Testament’ rather than to editions in the original language, 
which were used in my former Commentaries. Continual ref- 
erence is also made to the enlarged and now very complete 
general Greek Grammar of Dr. Raphael Kihner, which had 
not appeared in its present form when my former Commen- 
taries were written. Nearly all the other grammatical authori- 
ties have been long before the world, and will not be unfamiliar 
to the readers of my former volumes, almost the only new 
name being that of the small, carefully written, treatise on the 
principal Greek Particles by Baumlein, a book which I am 
afraid it is now not very easy to procure. But I need not 
dwell longer on these particulars, as the pages that follow will 
speak for themselves. To many those pages may secm too full 
of technical matter, and too persistent in their grammatical 
references and details. I will ask, however, all who may take 
this view kindly to remember that this professes to be, and is, 
a grammatical Commentary, and must be borne with as such. 
Next I will presume to say this,— that if the student will 
patiently wade through these details of grammar he will be 
rewarded by a real knowledge of the mind of the original, which, 
so far as I know, cannot certainly be acquired any other way. 
Iam well aware that this is a sentiment which may not be 
quite in harmony with the tone of the hurried days in which 
we are living, and with the obvious tendency to escape, as far 
as possible, the trammels of laborious scholarship. Still, I. 
must be permitted to say, it is true. 


In regard of the ancient Versions and the Greek expositors, 
1 See note on page 12. 


8 PREFACE. 


it will be seen that the attention paid to them has been increas- 
ingly close and systematic. They really form the backbone of 
this Commentary. To the Versions I have attended most 
carefully, and, it may be added, at a very great expenditure of 
time. Of some there are either no translations, or translations 
so very untrustworthy that anything like a proper knowledge 
of these early documents can only be acquired by hard personal 
work. This has been freely given, for in these Versions we 
have often the voice and traditional interpretations of ancient 
Churches, and are learning not merely the mind of the unknown 
early translator, but, to a large extent, of those among whom 
he was living, and by whose general persuasions, in regard of 
many a debatable passage, his own opinions were largely influ- 
enced. Theonly Version which I have comparatively neglected 
is the Athiopic. It so often degenerates into loose, if not 
erroneous, paraphrase, that it has seemed excusable to save the 
time which old experience has taught me this not very inviting 
language does always most certainly absorb. It has not, how- 
ever, by any means been left wholly unnoticed. In regard of 
the extracts made from these Versions, no good end would be 
obtained by printing the original, even in a transliterated form. 
Very few could profit by it. The citations have been given, 
then, nearly in all cases, in Latin,—that language admitting 
of more compression than our own, and being the language in 
which trustworthy translations of one or two of these Versions 
have already been made. The Gothic has commonly been | 
printed in the original language, as, in many cases, being intel- 
ligible almost to the general reader. 

The assistance derived from the patristic writers has been, 
in this Epistle, very great, and, as will be seen, has been very 
largely and thankfully made use of. Independently of the four 
regularly used expositors (Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophy- 
lact, and Gicumenius), the citations from several other writers, 
as given in Cramer’s Catene, have been found to be of great 
value. The only difficulty is in the ascription of authorship, 
comments bearing one name being, from time to time, found 
really to belong to another. For this, however, these Cutene 


PREFACE. 9 


are held responsible, and,in most cases, a brief indication is 
given of the quotation having been made from them. The 
Latin Fathers have been much more sparingly used, as their 
judgment in matters of linguistic detail could never be placed 
on a level with that of men who spoke the language which they 
were interpreting. 

The more recent interpreters, as already has been indicated, 
are those whom previous experience, as well as the general 
consent of modern interpreters and divines, has proved to be 
the most trustworthy. Selection is here absolutely necessary, 
and it has been made in these pages on settled principles, and 
with due regard to the limitations of space. No Commentary 
of any value has been overlooked, and where anything has been 
derived from it, reference and acknowledgment have been made. 
The absence of names must not, then, suggest that the labors 
of others have been in any degree overlooked. They have 
simply not been selected for that continuous reference which 
careful consideration has shown, in a work of this particular 
character, to be more profitably restricted to those that have 
been systematically referred to. To speak more in detail is un- 
necessary. The names of the expositors principally made use of 
are well known, and their merits and characteristics by no means 
unfamiliar, even to general readers. The only name that may 
not be quite so well known is that of Hofmann, to whose acute 
commentary I have never failed to give the attention it deserves. 
It has, however, two faults, which in my judgment, greatly 
interfere with its usefulness. It is too fine drawn in many of 
its interpretations, and it is far too much given to ingenious 
dissent from distinguished contemporaries, where the amount 
of exegetical difference is to a plain mind provokingly slight. 
However, the careful reader who follows up my references will 
hardly ever regret the pains he may have to bestow on this 
singularly quick-sighted, but confessedly somewhat difficult, 
interpreter. The great use I have have found in him is that 
of precluding over-hasty acceptance of current and plausible 
interpretations. 


Of living commentators it is obviously not desirable for me 
2 


10 PREFACE. 


to say more than to express my respectful recognition of labors 
that have been well bestowed, and work that has been well 
done. There are two English Commentaries, however, to 
which I may be permitted very briefly to refer, as I have re- 
ceived from both much that has reassured me in my own judg- 
ment in difficult passages, and much that has led me to test 
my results when I have not found myself in agreement with 
them. The works to which I refer are the singularly attrac- 
tive Commentary of Canon Evans, and the full, careful, and 
comprehensive Commentary of Principal Edwards. They have 
been used but little directly in the construction of this Com- 
mentary, as the Jez operis is of a different nature, and its 
general character settled long before I had the pleasure of 
seeing either of these agreeable volumes. Their influence, if 
any, has been indirect, but I desire not the less gratefully to 
mention it. 

There is, I think, nothing further in this Commentary that 
requires to be alluded to. Systematic reference will be found, ~ 
as before, to our best Anglican divines, and particularly to their 
sermons. For this feature of my Commentaries I have often 
received thanks and acknowledgments, and I have been very 
careful to maintain it in the present work. I have added largely 
references to distinguished German divines whose works were 
either not written when the former volumes of this series were 
publisned, or not accessible, as they now are, to the general 
reaaer through the media of the translations that have appeared 
in the ‘Theological Library’ of Messrs Clark of Edinburgh. 
To these, rather than to the volumes in the original German, 
I have, for the sake of the student, been careful, where possi- 
ble, to refer. Attention has been especially directed to some 
of the best recent treatises on Christian Ethics; this First 
Epistle to the Corinthians being pre-eminently that portion of 
Holy Scripture in which such references will be most useful 
and seasonable. It is to be regretted that the study of Chris- 
tian Ethics, especially at the present time, has received but little 
attention from writers of our own Church. Few of us could 
fail largely to profit by a careful perusal of the three volumes 


PREFACE. 11 


on Christian Ethics by that great and sober thinker, the late 
Bishop Martensen, to whom, in Christian Dogmatics, we have 
already owed so much. 

In conclusion, it is my duty to account for the absence in 
this volume of the translation that has been appended to the 
preceding volumes of this series. The reason why it has been 
omitted is the very simple one, that a far better translation 
than any one that I could produce is now in the hands of the 
Christian reader. My former translations, and the notes that 
were appended to them, were designed to be humble contri- 
butions to that which has rendered their further continuance 
unnecessary, —the Revised Version of the New Testament. 
When that which is complete has appeared, that which is in 
part may disappear. 

In taking this course, however, I have in no degree sought 
to spare myself either responsibility or labor. The reader has 
still from me, almost in a continuous form, a translation, framed 
on the principles of my former translations; but instead of 
being printed at the end of the volume it now will be found in 
the body of it, running on continuously with the notes. This 
arrangment, it is hoped, will be found not only more natural 
under the circumstances, but also really more convenient to 
the reader. Of the Version itself to which I thus gladly give 
place, I do not, from the nature of my connection with it, feel 
it either necessary or desirable to say more than this,— First, 
that I have gone over it in this Epistle in the closest manner, 
as a fair and unbiassed critic, and as one who has allowed no 
predilections or reminiscences of the past in any degree to 
influence his present judgment. Secondly, that the sum and 
substance of this review of it has led me conscientiously to 
regard it as the most accurate version of this Epistle that has 
ever yet appeared in any language. That I have ventured to 
differ from it in a few passing details will be seen in the notes, 
but these differences are neither so many nor of such a char- 
acter as to lead me to do other than I now do,— and that is to 
refer the student for a continuous translation of this Epistle, 
with all possible confidence, to the Revised Version. 


12 PREFACE. 


I now close these labors with one heartfelt expression of 
thankfulness to Almighty God that I have been permitted to 
continue and complete them. They have at times, owing to 
the ceaseless interruptions that have broken their course, 
seemed more than I could ever hope to carry through. Often 
has it been painfully brought home to me that work such as 
this, to be well done, requires serene spaces of time, and the 
continuity of persistent effort. Still I have done all that I 
could do, consistently with the great duties in which I have 
been, now for nearly a quarter of a century, engaged. For 
the health and power to do this, again, with all solemnity, I 
return my deepest and adoring thanks to Almighty God. May 
He vouchsafe to grant, for Jesus Christ’s sake, that this hum- 
ble effort of waning life to set forth more clearly to the stu- 
dent the meaning of one of the most varied and most profoundly 
interesting portions of the Book of Life, may receive some 
measure of the Divine blessing, and not only may help, but 
encourage, others to study more closely the light-giving and 
life-giving Word of God. I conclude with words that, from 
time to time, have been similiarly used by me before, but never 
more deeply felt than now,— 


TPIAS, MONAS, ‘EAEHSON. 


Nots. — The references to Winer’s New Testament Grammar found in 
this Commentary correspond section for section, etc., to Professor Thayer’s 
edition of that Grammar: W. F. Draper, Publisher, Andover, Mass. 


INTRODUCTION. 


The ancient and famous city which bore the name, first of 
Kphyra, and then of Corinth, was not the Corinth, to the Chris- 
tian inhabitants of which St. Paul wrote this Epistle. The 
ancient city was taken, pillaged, and given to the flames by 
L. Mummius in the year B.c. 146. For 100 years it lay in 
utter ruins; all the works of art that could be moved, were 
carried away, and the greater parteven of the temples over- 
thrown and destroyed. Thus it remained till the year 46 B.c., 
when, for political reasons, Julius Cesar determined to rebuild 
the ruined city. A large number of Roman colonists, princi- 
pally veteran soldiers and freedmen, were sent there. Inhabi- 
tants from the neighboring territories, heretofore forbidden to 
settle there, speedily flocked in; the relics of the ancient city 
were conserved; what remained of the public buildings were 
restored ; and Roman Corinth, the Corinth of this Epistle, rap- 
idly rose to eminence and prosperity, and by the time St. Paul 
visited it was probably a busy city of 100,000 souls.1 The 
institutions were Roman, and, according to some writers, the 
language also,? but, however this may have been in the courts 
or in public documents, it is not very easily conceivable that 
the current language of the city was other than that in which 
St. Paul addressed his Christian converts. Indeed it may 
probably be correctly said that Greek art, Greek culture, and, 

1The exaggerated estimates that have been formed of its population appear 
to rest upon a wholly incredible statement of Athenzus; see Smith, Décz. of 


Greek and Roman Geography, Vol. . p. 679. 
2 See Finlay, Aistory of Greece, Vol. I. p. 59. 


14 INTRODUCTION: 


alas, Greek licence and sensuality, were now predominant in 
the restored city ; and that Roman Corinth had in many things 
reverted to the usages of the Corinth of the past. Though all 
the revolting immorality to which Strabo alludes? must have 
belonged to an earlier period, yet it is perfectly clear from this 
Epistle that much of it had revived, and that the worship of 
Aphrodite, to whom the whole mountain against which the 
city rested was dedicated,? was among the most baneful of the 
idolatries of the restored city. 

The study of philosophy had also obviously revived. It was 
in no way likely that the now prosperous Corinth would not, 
to some considerable extent, have sought to maintain that cul- 
ture which still kept up the neighboring city of Athens as the 
sort of University of the ancient world. The very position 
also of Corinth largely contributed to the intellectual develop- 
ment of its inhabitants, and made it the cosmopolitan city of 
which we find so many indirect traces in the Epistle, and so 
many passing notices elsewhere. That such a city should be 
selected by the Apostle as one of the most hopeful places for 
the foundation of a Christian Church, is only another proof of 
that direct guidance of the Holy Spirit of which we find such 
frequent mention in the Acts of the Apostles. 

At this city, probably in the autumn of the year 52 or 53 
A.D., some fifteen years after his conversion, the Apostle ar- 
rived from Athens, at the close of his second great missionary 
journey. He was alone, as he had been at Athens (1 Thess. 
iii. 1), Timothy and Silas having remained behind in Macedonia 
(Acts xvii. 14). He was alone, and, as he tells us in this 
Epistle (ch. ii. 3), not unnaturally in weakness and anxiety. 
He appears soon to have met with, and probably converted, 
Aquila and Priscilla, who with other Jews had been recently 
expelled from Rome; and with whom, as being of the same 

1 Strabo, Geog. vill. 6. 20 (ed. Kramer). 

2 Pausanias, Grec. Descr. I. 4, 6, 7. 

8 Dio. Chrysostom (Ovraz¢. XXVII. p. 463; cited for Wetstein), writing probably 
about fifty years later, speaks of it as méAts Tév obcdv Te Kal yeyevnucvwy emappo- 


diroraérm. The new Corinth soon became as profligate as the Corinth of the 
past. 


INTRODUCTION. 15 


trade, he at first abode, preaching and reasoning sabbath after 
sabbath in the Jewish synagogue (as was his regular practice ; 
see Acts xvii. 2), and not without some distinct measure of 
success. ‘The success was probably much greater in the case 
of the devout heathen, who as proselytes of the gate, were now 
readily admitted into the synagogues.? 

On the arrival of Silas and Timothy, a distinct change took 
place. The Apostle made still more energetic efforts, and 
especially endeavored to bring home to his Jewish hearers that 
Jesus was the true Messiah (Acts xviii. 5). This called forth 
such strong and even violent opposition that the Apostle sol- 
emnly and deliberately left the synagogue, and henceforth made 
the house of a proselyte of the name of Titus Justus, which 
closely abutted on the synagogue, the place in which he taught 
and preached. Great success followed. Crispus the ruler of 
the synagogue became a believer, and was baptized by the Apos- 
tle (ch. i. 14), and with him Gaius, probably a wealthy Corin- 
thian,? and many others. The Apostle received special divine 
encouragement (Acts xviii. 9),and great spiritual success was 
vouchsafed to him. At present, however, the converts mainly 
belonged to the less educated and humbler classes (ch. i. 26 
sq.) and, even after the preaching of the eloquent Apollos, do 
not appear to have been joined by many from the higher class. 
The Lord, however, even in these early days ‘had much people’ 
in Corinth (Acts xviii. 10). 

After a stay of eighteen months (ver. 12)’, an organized 
attempt was made by the Jews; the Apostle was brought before 
the newly-come Proconsul, Gallio, and was charged with teach- 
ing the worship of God in a manner contrary to the law. The 
mild, and so far equitable, brother of Seneca at once dismissed 


1See Ewald, History of Zsrael, Vol. vu. p. 310 (Transl.). 

2 When St. Paul visited Corinth five years afterwards he appears to have 
stayed in the house of this Gaius,—the house being one of the places where 
either a regular Christian assembly was held, or where Christians were freely 
entertained : see Rom. xvi. 23, and Meyer zz Joc. 

3 See Meyer zz loc. as to the terminus ad quem of this period. Wieseler 
(Chronol. Apost. p. 45) makes the eighteen months extend to the time of the 
Apostle’s departure. 


16 INTRODUCTION. 


the case, and the Apostle stayed some time longer (Acts xviii. 
18) preaching and teaching, it would seem, without any further 
hinderance. After a time, we cannot say how long, the Apostle 
left Corinth for Ephesus, with Aquila and Priscilla, and, leay- 
ing them in that city, set sail for Caesarea, and passed onward 
to Jerusalem, returning shortly afterwards to Antioch. After 
some stay at Antioch, he went through Galatia and Phrygia, 
and finally returned to Ephesus, where he remained three years, 
and from which city, towards the close of his stay there, prob- 
ably in the spring of 57 or 58 A.D., he wrote this Epistle to the 
Corinthian Church. 

We now have to notice an event which had a great influence 
on the development of Christianity in Corinth. Before St. 
Paul had reached Ephesus, the eloquent Jew of Alexandria, 
Apollos, had been there, and had preached boldly in the syna- 
gogue. As yet be knew only the baptism of John, but after 
further teaching by Aquila and Priscilla, who were remaining 
at Ephesus, and probably gave encouragement to their earnest 
and eloquent pupil, he went to Corinth, and greatly aided the 
progress of Christianity. That which the Apostle had planted, 
he faithfully watered (ch. iii. 6), being especially successful, 
as it would seem, in some manner even more public than the 
synagogue, in convincing the Jews that Jesus was the Christ 
(Act xviii. 28). Apollos returned to Ephesus probably after 
no long stay at Corinth, and was with the Apostle when he 
was writing this Epistle (ch. xvi. 12). 

Serious consequenses, however, followed this visit. 

The substance of the preaching and teaching of Apollos, 
though beyond all doubt the same as that of St. Paul, was as 
certainly different in form and manner. The speech and 
preaching of the Apostle were, as he himself tells us, studiedly 
simple and fundamental (ch. ii. 2), and, as befitted such teach- 
ing, were set forth neither with excellency of speech nor with 
persuasive words of merely human wisdom (ver. 4). The 
preaching of Apollos, on the other hand, was marked by elo- 
quence and power, and, as we know, was especially helpful, 
not only in attracting new converts, but in confirming those 


INTRODUCTION. 17 


that already believed (Acts xviii. 27), and in confuting Jewish 
opponents. The result might easily have been foreseen. Two 
parties began silently to show themselves in the Church, — 
those who adhered to the founder and his well-remembered 
plain, Spirit-moved form of teaching (ch. ii. 4), and those who 
were carried away by the energy and persuasiveness of the 
eloquent Alexandrian. The evil was greatly augmented by 
the arrival, most probably after the departure of Apollos, of 
teachers, perhaps from Jerusalem or perhaps from some of 
the Asiatic Churches, who claimed for their opinions the author- 
ity of St. Peter, and gradually assumed in many particulars 
(questions connected with marriage, distinctions of meats, and 
other minor features of Judaistic Christianity) an attitude of 
opposition alike to the supporters of St. Paul and Apollos. It 
is not difficult to conceive that the growing troubles and incon- 
veniences arising from the opposition, one to another, of these 
three parties called out a fourth party, which, in disavowing 
all party, and especially all human leaders, became, probably, 
in the sequel the most intolerant of all,— the sacred name of 
Christ being used as the designation of this fourth portion of 
the divided Church. 

Such were the parties at Corinth, of comparatively sudden 
and not unnatural emergence, injurious to the peace and growth 
of the Church, but, as it would seem, not of any lasting influ- 
ence. By the grace of God, and through the appeal of the 
Apostle, they appear to have so comparatively soon died out, 
that Clement of Rome, writing to the Corinthian Church only 
a generation afterwards, speaks of them as movements belong- 
ing wholly to the past, and much less injurious in their effects 
than the troubles and contentions of his own times.! We can- 
not, then, agree with those writers who represent these parties 
as actually defined factions, and who elaborately seek for traces 
of their respective opinions and influence in the various and 
broad questions that are treated of in this Epistle. e . 

That they would, however, have greatly endangered the 
progress of Christianity in the early development of the Corin- 


1 See Clem.-Rom. ad Cor. 1. cap. 47. 
3 


18 INTRODUCTION. 


thian Church, may be confidently inferred from the firm manner 
in which they were dealt with by the Apostle. 

He had now returned (54 or 55 a.p) to Ephesus, and, as we 
know, remained there for three years (Acts xx. 30). In the 
early part of his stay, the parties at Corinth were only in the 
process of formation. His attention was then more particularly 
directed, by the tidings from time to time brought to him, to 
the traditional sin of Corinth, which was showing itself even 
within the Church (comp. 2 Cor. xii. 21). He appears to have 
written a letter (ch. v. 9), now lost, which probably was mainly 
on this subject, and on the associated evils of the temple-feasts. 
Somewhat later in the Apostle’s stay, the circumstances of the 
now more fuily developed parties among the Corinthian Chris- 
tians were mentioned to him by members of the household 
of Chloe (ch. i. 11), and also the movements against his own 
Apostolic authority. Of these parties in the Church, and the 
disorders which they appear indirectly to have caused even in 
the public worship (consider ch. xi. 18 sqq.), the Apostle con- 
tinued to hear (see notes on ch. xi. 18) till the very time of 
his writing this Epistle. The opening chapters show how seri- 
ously the Apostle dealt with the movement, and how his own 
son in the faith, Timothy, was despatched to follow up by his 
personal counsels the Epistle that we know preceded him (ch. 
ives, xvi, 10); 

The subject of the party divisions thus called out the earlier 
chapters of the Epistle. There was, however, much beside | 
that required to be noticed. It is not improbable that the 
Apostle was informed by the members of the household of 
Chloe of the grievous case of incest, and of the litigations before 
heathen courts, and perhaps also of the disorders that had 
shown themselves in the administration of the Lord’s Supper. 
A letter also had come from the Church of Corinth, apparently 
brought by Stephanas and others (ch. xvi. 17), asking ques- 
tions relative to marriage and virginity (ch. vii.), the eating of 
offerings made to idols (ch. vili.), and, as also seems probable, 
spiritual gifts (ch. xii.), and especially the speaking with tongues 
(ch. xiv.), which many members of the Church were disposed 


INTRODUCTION. 19 


greatly to over-value. To this letter it was urgently necessary 
that an answer should be returned; and that, more especially, 
as the Apostle’s words in his former letter had, at least in one 
case, been misunderstood (ch. v. 9,10), and in some others 
(consider ch. vi. 12, x. 28), not improbably, misinterpreted. 
Beside these subjects of the letter, it does not seem improbable, 
from the position of the chapter, that the doubts that were 
entertained by some members of the Corinthian Church on the 
resurrection of the body were mentioned by Stephanas and his 
companions, and that thus additional reason of the gravest 
kind existed for the Apostle’s writing to the Corinthian Church, 
and at once. 

The letter was probably written in the conluding period of 
the Apostle’s stay at Ephesus, in the spring of the year 57 or 
58 A.D., close about the time of the Passover, and was, most | 
likely, entrusted to Stephanas and his companions to be deliy- | 
ered to the Corinthian Church. 

We have now, lastly, to notice a little more precisely the 
structure and contents of the Epistle, to which allusion has 
already been made. 

The Epistle consists of a short Introduction and seven well- 
defined sections, succeeding each other in the order which we 
have already sketched out, and closing with an additional sec- 
tion of final directions and communications. On each of these 
divisions it may be convenient to make a few introductory 
comments. 

The Salutation and opening words only take up nine verses 
(ch. i. 1-9), but are of considerable importance as showing 
that the Church of Corinth, though disturbed by party spirit 
and even stained by some grievous sins, was making great 
spiritual progress. The language of thanksgiving which the 
Apostle uses is strong and unqualified. Great spiritual gifts 
had been bestowed on the Church. The members of it were 
manifesting that clearest token of true life-— they were watch- 
ing and waiting for the coming of the Lord ; and they receive 
the solemn assurance that the Lord for whom they were wait- 
ing will strengthen and confirm them unto the end. Such 


20) INTRODUCTION. 


words should be well borne in mind. They were not the words 
of mere conventional courtesy, but convey the truth which the 
reader should well bear in mind, that the Church of Corinth, 
in spite of its many shortcomings, was a true and living Church, 
and that the very strife that unhappily had shown itself was a 
token of earnestness and life. Corinth was no Laodicea. 

The first portion of the Epistle (ch. i. 10-iv. 21) deals with 
that strife seriously and fully. It discloses, plainly enough, 
how much of the existing state of things was due to spiritual 
vanity, and to seeking after a pretentious wisdom of the world 
instead of humbly and thankfully accepting the simple and 
fundamental truths of the Gospel. This aspect of the subject 
naturally leads the Apostle to speak very fully of the nature 
of his own teaching and preaching among them,and enables us 
to realize how completely it was under the special guidance of 
the Holy Ghost (ch. ii. 4, 10, 18, al.) that he preached as he 
did preach in worldly-intellectual Corinth. That the Apostle 
should pass from his teaching to his close relations with them 
as their spiritual father and founder (ch. iv.), and even con- 
clude with the words of implied threatening (ch. iv. 21), as 
well as of censure and rebuke, is only consonant with the whole 
tenor of one of the most pathetically, as well as indignantly, 
earnest remonstrances ever addressed by a Christian teacher 
and preacher to a Christian Church. 

The tone becomes even deeper and stronger in the portion 
of the Epistle which follows (ch. v. vi.), in which the Apostle 
deals with the revolting sin of the incestuous member of the 
Corinthian Church, and with the startling fact that the case 
was regarded by many with comparative indifference,— possibly 
as a phenomenon, more or less repulsive, with which they, the 
illuminated, had but little todo. This grievous sin, their appeal. 
to heathen tribunals, and the excuses (involving even misuse 
of St. Paul’s own words) which they were actually finding for 
the prevalent fornication which the Apostle had already re- 
buked in a former letter (ch. v. 9), form the substance of this 
second portion of the Epistle, and are dealt with in language 
of great power and persuasiveness. 


INTRODUCTION. 21 


What might be considered the first great division of the 
Epistle, here closes, as the Apostle, in the third portion (ch. 
vii.), and indeed in the fourth (ch. viii. 1, xi. 1) and sixth 
(ch. xii.—xiv.) portions, passes to the questions which had been 
put to him in the letter brought by Stephanas and his friends. ’ 
In this third portion the Apostle answers the questions relative 
to marriage and virginity. Some reactionary feeling against 
the prevalent licentiousness in Corinth may have led many of 
the more earnest members of the Church to advocate an asceti- 
cism which required to be discussed with the utmost circum- 
spection and prudence. The Apostle thus enters into many 
details, leaving apparently no single question unanswered that 
had been either raised or suggested in the Corinthian letter. 
In all these details he refers everything to the highest princi- 
ples, and solves the varied moral problems which the chapter 
suggests in a manner that must have brought home the truth 
of the last words of this section to every thoughtful Christian 
in whose ears this marvellous chapter was read. 

In the fourth portion (ch. viii. 1-xi. 1) the Apostle deals at 
considerable length, and in a very varied manner, with the 
subject of eating meats offered to idols, and taking part in 
feasts made in their honor. In dealing with the complicated 
questions connected with this subject, the same lofty tone that 
we have already observed will at once be recognized by every 
careful reader. Everything is referred at once to principles 
of the loftiest strain, and sometimes of the deepest suggestive- 
ness. Digressive statements are made as to his own freedom, 
rights, and course of action (ch. ix. 1-23), all marked by the 
highest tone ; the significance of ancient history is demonstrated 
(ch. x. 1-13); momentous truths are revealed (ch. x. 19 sq.), 
and the frightful perils that lurk, in what might at first sight 
seem merely debatable questions, disclosed with a startling 
_ force and cogency. This portion of the Epistle concludes with 
the same precept with which, pratically, the first portion con- 
cludes; the Corinthian Christian was to imitate him who first 
brought Christianity to Coyinth, and whose principle was,— 
consideration toward all, that, by so showing it, al] might be 
saved (ch. x. 83). 


22 INTRODUCTION. 


In the fifth portion, the Apostle pauses in his answers to the 
questions of the Corinthian letter to notice two grave matters 
which had been probably mentioned to him by his informants 
from Chloe’s household,— the disorderly habit of women pub- 
licly praying with uncovered heads, and the serious irreverence 
that was shown in connection with the Lord’s Supper. These 
particulars, belonging more especially to Christian order and 
worship, he may have felt it desirable to dispose of before he 
entered into the larger and more complicated subject of the 
Spiritual Gifts, and the concluding doctrinal subject of the 
Resurrection of the body. In both the particulars noticed in 
this section the same mode of treatment may be observed which 
we have already referred to,— the appeal to first and highest 
principles in reference to practices that might have been thourht 
simply to belong to general order and discipline. The woman’s 
covered head is shown to depend, on the one hand, on principles 
connected with the very creation of man, and, on the other, 
upon the mysterious presence of unseen beings at prayers and 
prophesyings (ch. xi. 10), when none save mortal worshippers 
could have been deemed to be present. The irreverent par- 
ticipation in the Lord’s Supper is shown to involve a sin so 
grave that in some cases death was its ordained chastisement 
(ch xi. 30). Such revelations must have produced a profound 
effect, even on the self-satisfied Corinthian, and restored that 
‘sober and decorous piety ’ which Clement of Rome mentions 
as having been one of the earlier characteristics of the Corin- 
thian Church. 

The sixth portion (ch. xii.xiv.), from the form of words 
with which it opens, was probably in answer to questions rela- 
tive to the special gifts which had been bestowed by the Spirit 
upon the Corinthians. The questions most probably turned 
mainly upon the mysterious gift of tongues, and the relation 
in which it stood to prophesyings and other supernatural gifts. 
The whole subject is discussed with great fulness. The obvious 
tendency to over-value speaking with tongues is corrected, and 
that principle on which every gift really and truly depends for 


1 See Clem.-Rom. ad Cor. cap. I. 


INTRODUCTION. 23 


its proper exercise,— the principle of Christian love, set forth 
and glorified in the sublime chapter (ch. xiii.) which speaks 
not only of Love’s present characteristics, but of its enduring 
nature when all other gifts and graces will have either changed 
their nature, or passed finally away. The careful directions 
which follow in regard of speaking with tongues and prophe- 
sying (ch. xiv.) serve very suitably to remind us of the large 
outpouring of the Spirit that had plainly been bestowed on the 
Church of Corinth. 

The seventh portion, on the Resurrection of the body, must 
therefore not be regarded as an indication that the Church of 
Corinth had, in any general manner, fallen away from the 
faith in regard of this vital doctrine. Even the ‘some among 
them’ (ch. xv. 12) that doubted or denied the resurrection of 
the dead, did not so much deny the fact of existence after death, 
as the possibility of a resurrection of that body which seemed, 
by its very constitution and dissolution, to belong to the heritage 
of corruption. It was the mystery of the future body, and the 
form and manner in which the dead were again to appear on, 
so to say, the theatre of being (ch. xv. 85), that constituted 
the real difficulty, and is, consequently, dwelt upon more 
especially in this great doctrinal chapter. The difficulties that 
were felt were exactly the difficulties that we might have 
expected would have been felt in a city like Corinth. And 
these difficulties to some extent lingered, as thirty years after- 
wards we find Clement of Rome still dwelling upon the subject, 
and seeking to rekindle a faith 1 which still seemed to be feeble 
and languishing. 

The concluding portion of the Epistle contains instructions 
as to the collection for the poorer brethren in the Mother-Church 
of Jerusalem, and the many directions and words of encourage- 
ment which the circumstances of such a Church as that of 
Corinth would be sure to call forth. One flash of vivid warning 
(ch. xvi. 22) lights up even the closing salutation, but fades 
away again in the words of deepest affection,—1 ayamn pou 
peTa TavtTav wuav ev Xpiot@ “Inood (ver. 24),— with which 


1 See Clem.-Rom. ad Cor. cap. 27; comp. cap. 24 sqq. 


24 INTRODUCTION. 


this varied and noble Epistle comes, appropriately, to its 
close. 

On the genuineness and authenticity of the Epistle no reason- 
able doubt has ever been entertained. The earliest references 
to it are,— Clem.-Rom. ad Cor. capp. 47, 49; Polycarp, ad 
Phil. cap.11; Ignatius, ad Eph. cap. 2; Epist. ad Diogn. (ap. 
Just. M. Opp.), p. 502 c (Colon. 1686) ; Ireneus, Heer. m1. 11 
9, iv. 27.3; Athenagoras, de Resurr. p.61 c (Colon. 1686); 
Clem.-Alex. Pedag.i.33; Tertull. de Prescr. cap 33, and 
the Muratorian Fragment, in which this Epistle holds the first 
place in the enumeration of the thirteen Epistles of St. Paul. 


FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


CHAPTER I. 


Grace and Peace to 
the Church of God 
in Corinth. 


AYAOZ, kdrnris aroator0s Xpictob 
*Inood bia OeAjpatos Ocod, kai Swaévns 


1. Xpicred *Incod] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. on apparently preponderating 
authority; Rec. Rev., Westc. and Hort,’ Incot Xpiorov. 


INTRODUCTORY (ch. i. I-9.) 

1-3. Opening address. 1 K«dnTds 
amdoroXos] ‘called as an Apostle, i.e. 
an Apostle, not by the appointment of 
man, but by the special calling of God, 
‘vocatione Apostolus,’ Beza: designa- 
tion of himself in his most solemn offi- 
cial character, not without some oblique 
reference to those who were under- 
valuing his Apostolical authority ; xapat 
epupe macav avtav otnow, KAnToy éavTdv 
<imov, Chrys. This peculiar designation 
only occurs here and in Rom. i.1; and 
in both places seems designed by St. 
Paul to enhance his authority and office; 
comp. Fritz. Rom. l.c. Vol. I. p. 4. 
Here he tacitly maintains his special 
apostolic calling against gainsayers and 
WevdardoroAo (comp. 2 Cor. xi. 13); 
there he states his full credentials to a 
Church which he had not yet visited. 
The allusive reference in the present 
case is doubted by Meyer, as opposed 
to the general conciliatory tone of the 
address, but apparently without suf- 


ficient reason. On the Apostle’s varied 
designations of himself in the com- 
mencement of his Epp., see Riickert 
on Gal. i. 1, and notes oz Col.i. 1; and 
on the true meaning of verbal adjectives 
in -ros (capability and the results of it; 
and so with no relation to time as in 
the case of passive participles), Don- 
alds. Gr. § 302 h. Xpirrod *In- 
ood] ‘of Christ Jesus ;’ not dependent 
on KAnrds (Cremer, Bzb1.-Theol. Worter- 
buch, S. V. p. 333, and apparently Copt.), 
but on amréoroAos (Syr.), or, rather, on 
the compound expression KAntbs améa- 
Todos, the possessive genitive marking 
whose minister he was; see notes oz 
Eph. i. 1. Sia. OeAfjpartos Ocod], 
‘by the will of God;’? modal clause, 
appended to the whole preceding mem- 
ber (comp. 2 Cor. i. 1, Eph. i. 1, Col. 
i. 1, 2 Tim. i. 1), and probably added 
by the Apostle not simply to enhance 
his authority, but also to give passing 
expression to that thankful remem- 
brance of God’s grace and mercy which 


26 


CORINTHIANS: 


CHAP. Lely 2- 


6 dderhos, 27H éxkrnoia tod Oeod tH ovon ev KopwOe, yr 


any allusion to his calling and Apostle- 
ship seems rarely to have failed to call 
forth; see notes oz Eph. i. 1. The 
remark of Bengel zz Joc. thus seems 
substantially correct; ‘mentione Dez 
excluditur auctoramentum humanum 
(Gal. i. 1); mentione voluntatis Dei, 
meritum Pauli; cap. xv. 8 ss.’ 
Loobévns 6 adeddds] ‘Sosthenes our 
brother;’ not the same as 6 adeApds 
pov (2 Cor. ii. 13), in which there is 
appy. a more special reference to official 
brotherhood, but simply with general 
reference to a common brotherhood 
in Christ: ‘Sosthenes, the Christian 
brother,’ one of of adeApoi comp. ch. 
xvi. 12, Rom. xvi. 23, 2 Cor. i. 1, Col. 
i. 1, and notes z7z Joc. Of the Sosthenes 
here mentioned, nothing is known. The 
name is sufficiently common (see Mi- 
chael. Zin/eit. Vol. 11. p. 1214) to make 
it probable that he was ot identical 
with the Sosthenes mentioned in Acts 
xvili. 17 (Theod.), especially as both 
the position and the implied conduct 
of the apxiovvdywyos (as a complainant 
with the rest, ver. 12) seem at variance 
with such a supposition (see Meyer oz 
Acts l.c.), but was probably some Co- 
rinthian convert, at that time in the 
company of St. Paul, who was suffi- 
ciently well known to the Church in 
Corinth to be a ‘socius salutationis.’ 
He is named by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 
i. 12) as one of the Seventy Disciples, 
and is said in later tradition to have 
been Bishop of Colophon; see AZenolog. 
Grec. Part I. p. 17, and comp. Acta 
Sanct. for June, Vol. vit. p. 706, Giraud, 
Bibl. Sacrée, Vol. XXIV. p. 190. Had 
Timothy now been with the Apostle 
(but see ch. iv. 17), we may infer from 
2 Cor. i. 1 that he would have been 
here associated with him in this salu- 
tation. 


2. TH ekKAX. TOD Ocod] ‘20 the Church 
of God:’ solemn and significant desig- 
nation of the Christian Church (comp. 
ch. x. 32, xi. 16, 22, xv. 9, 2 Cor.i. I, 
al.); the former substantive expressing 
the combined ideas of selection and yet 
of union (od xwpicpod GAA Kal Evdoews 
Kat cuupwrias éotly dvoua, Chrys. ; comp. 
Osiander zz /oc.), the latter (gen. of 
possession) specifying Whose the Church 
was, and so its holiness,—an idea sub- 
sequently emerging more distinctly in 
the clause ny:acpéevos ev Xpiot@ *Iqood. 
Meyer and others properly compare the 
corresponding expression of the Old 
Testament pins bap Numb. xvi. 3 
(LXX, cvvaywyh), Deut. xxiii. 2 (LX X, 
éxkAnola), of which this is the amplifi- 
cation and mAfpwois: see Reuss, 7héol. 
Chrét. v. 17, Vol. u. p. 186 sq. The 
question which this expression and the 
commendatory notices which follow 
might readily suggest, — How could 
St. Paul so characterize a Church in 
which there was so much of which he 
had to complain,—is well answered 
by Calvin zz Joc. ‘nempe quia Evan- 
gelii doctrinam, baptismum, coenam 
Domini, quibus symbolis censeri debet 
ecclesia, apud eos cernebat.’ There is: 
thus nothing in this and the succeeding | 
comments either of mere prudential 
courtesy, or ideal presentation of a 
whole (Stanley on ver. 1-9), but simply 
a true and formal recognition of the 
real essence of a Christian Church; 
see Jackson, Creed, XII. 4. 4, Vol. XII. 
p- 26 (Oxf. 1844), Pearson, Creed, Vol. 
I. p. 404 (ed. Burton). On the defini- 
tion of the Church, see Field, Of the 
Church, Book I. ch. 6, and for the 
various patristic definitions, Suicer, 
Thesaur.s.v. Vol. I. p. 1049 Sq. 

Ty otorn ev Koplv0q] ‘which is in Cor- 
inth ;’ ‘letum et ingens paradoxon,’ 


Cuap., I. 2. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


27 


/ b] a? lel Lal e It \ a A >| 
acpévos ev Xpiot@ ‘Inoovd, Kryrois ayious, cuv Taw Tots ETt- 


Bengel: local specification, following, 
with a studied fulness of language 
(oon is not redundant; the Church 
was existing and flourishing), the gen- 
eral expression which has just pre- 
ceded: so 2 Cor. i. 13; comp. Rom. i. 
7, Eph.i. 1, Phil. i. 1, where the parti- 
ciple is similarly inserted. Zachm. and 
Treg. place this clause after jyacuévors 
k T.A., with good, but insufficiently sup- 
ported, authorities. TYLacpevous 
év Xpiora “Incot] ‘men sanctified in 
Christ Jesus ;? appositional clause de- 
fining the éxkA. Tov @eod in its spiritual 
relations and characteristics, and, by 
its transition into the plural, marking 
still more clearly the collective idea 
involved in the term; comp. Winer, 
Gr.§ 58. 4, Kiihner, Gr. § 359, 2. The 
sanctification is studiedly specified as 
being év Xpior@ *Incod; it was zx Him, 
in the sphere of His holy influence, 
and of His redeeming love, that alone 
the ayiacuds could be realized. The 
Holy Spirit is the source (2 Thess. ii. 
13), Christ Jesus the sphere (Eph. i. 4), 
and his propitiatory sacrifice the me- 
dium of its existence and operation; 
comp. Heb. x. Io. KAnTots a ylous] 
‘called as saints ;’ almost saints by vo- 
cation, ‘per vocationem sancti,’ Bengel 
on Rom.i. 7; concluding clause speci- 
fying, with some little emphasis, the 
fact of their KAjots ( od yap mpoonrAdere 
Tp@Tol, GAA” éexahOnre, Chrys.), and the 
results it involved and implied. The 
kAjjois was from God the Father (comp. 
Usteri, Lehrd. Il. 2. 2, p. 269, and see 
notes oz Gal. i. 6), and what it involved 
was the holiness of those to whom it 
was vouchsafed; comp. I Pet. i. 15. 

It is perhaps slightly doubtful (see Cal- 
vin 2 loc.) whether the words imply 
that the being @y.o: is involved in the 
calling (‘ causa sanctificationis vocatio ’) 


’ 


or is the object and design of it (‘ sanc- 
titas vocationis scopus’). Practically, 
as Calvin has remarked, the two views 
become coincident; the former, how- 
ever, seems most in accordance both 
with the context and with the preceding 
kAntos améaroAos. They were ‘holy 
because called’ (August.). In both 
passages the uy atdaipetos Hxwv (Suidas, 
Lex. S. v.) seems the idea which the 
verbal xAnrés is mainly designed to 
convey. The observation of Usteri 
(Zehré. p. 279) that St. Paul makes no 
difference between «xAnrot and éxAextol 
is apparently not perfectly correct. 
Though there is not that sharp distinc- 
tion which we recognize in Matt. xxii. 
14, still the characteristic difference 
between the terms may usually be rec- 
ognized, kAntés seeming to mark the 
more external and inclusive, éxAexrés 
the more internal and privileged; con- 
sider Rom. viii. 33, Tit. i. 1. Both 
terms are united in Rev, xvii. 14, cAnrTol 
kat exAeKTol kal moral. ov Ta- 
ow «T.X. ‘together with all that are 
calling upon ;’ further specification of 
those who are included by the Apostle 
in his opening words of address; viz. 
all that call upon the name of our 
Lord, wheresoever they may be; mdy- 
Twy Tay ev TdON TH yh weuvntat mio av, 
Chrys. The connection and reference 
of these words must fairly be pro- 
nounced very doubtful. We may (a) 
connect the clause closely with what 
precedes (so Lachm., Treg., De Wette, 
al.); or, retaining the punctuation of 
the text, we may (4) connect the clause 
with the leading words rH ékkAnota 
(Syr., AEth.), but “mt the wayr) témw 
to the regions with which the Church 
of Corinth was geographically con- 
nected, ze. to dAn TH *Axala, as defi- 
nitely specified in 2 Cor. i. 1 (Meyer, 


28 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


[Cuapr, I, 2, 3. 


Kadoupévois TO Ovoua ToD Kupiov tyav "Incod Xpiotod év rravtl 


TOT®, avT@Y Kal uav* ® ydpis bpiy Kai elpnvn ao Ocod TaTpos 


nav Kal Kupiov ’Incod Xpictod. 


2. avrayv kat nuav] So Lachm., Tisch., 


Treg., Westc. and Hort, or. very clearly 


preponderating authority; Rec., adra@y Te kal juar. 


al.); or we may (c) adopt the wider 
reference as stated at the beginning of 
this note. The objections to (2) seem 
to be well founded. The parallelism 
of clauses is lost; the sort of natural 
pause after the second specification, 
kAnrtois ayiors, disappears ; the emphatic, 
and sufficiently independent, statement 
(comp. Rom. i. 7) is clogged by an un- 
looked for addition, and the simple 
sequence of clauses (contrast Phil. i. 1) 
needlessly disturbed. To (4) the ob- 
jections are less strong, as a species of 
justification for the limitation is cer- 
tainly suggested by 2 Cor. i. 1. But 
the rejoinder seems clearly valid, viz. 
that if any such local limitation had 
been intended the Apostle could hardly 
have failed, With such inclusive words 
as év mavt) témm at the end of the 
clause, very clearly to have specified 
it. We therefore, with the Greek ex- 
positors (see Cramer, Caten. in loc.), 
adopt (c), and regard the clause as a 
kind of echo of the opening words tH 
éxkAnoig Tov Ocod, which, though limited 
in the words that follow, seem to have 
given a tone of catholicity to this im- 
pressive address. The use of ody rather 
than of the simple «af seems worthy of 
notice. It does not merely append the 
mévrTas Tovs émikad. k.T.A to those already 
addressed, but implies also the closeness 
of their association; cuvdmre: Tots Kata 
Thy oikoupevny wemiotevxdot, Theodoret. 
7d dvopa K.T.r.] ‘the name of our Lord 
Jesus Christ:’ sc. as that of their Sa- 
viour and God; with a plain and direct 
reference to the Divinity of our Lord: 


‘nota etiam quod Christum dicit invo- 
cari a fidelibus, quo ejus divinitas com- 
probatur,’ Calv.; compare Acts ii. 21, 
1X.\0A, 20, XXL 10, ROM: x.) 02, Lhe 
formula émikadcio Oat 7d dvoua is derived 
from the LXX, where the verb is found 
similarly in connection with dvoua Ku- 
piov as the translation of DW NP, 
and in three different constructions,— 
with simple acc. (Gen. xiii. 4), with ézi 
and dat. (Gen. xii. 8), and with éy 
(Psalm cxv. 8). That the phrase either 
here or elsewhere in the N.T. expresses 
the idea of ‘calling to aid’ (Stanley) 
cannot be clearly substantiated. The 
verb not uncommonly involves this 
meaning when with a defining infin. 
(Herod. v. 80) or with an accus. of the 
person (Thucyd. I. ror), but, when in 
combinations like the present, is ob- 
viously restricted to the invocation of 
prayer and adoration. The real force 
of the éwt is in fact directive (Rost u. 
Palm., Zex s.v. érl, C. b.): the prep. 
marks the direction of the address, the 
appended words or immediate context 
the nature and character of it; comp. 
Fritz. Rom. vol. I. p. 31. aiTav 
Kal pov] ‘ their and ours, i.e. ‘belong- 
ing to them and—to us,’ ‘ipsorum et 
nostro,’ Vulg.; comp. Rom. xvi. 13, 
Thy untépa avtod kal éuod. It is some- 
what doubtful whether these words are 
to be conneted (a) with the more remote 
Kuplov juav Ino. Xp. (Chrys., Theod., 
al.), as slightly correcting and enhan- 
cing the preceding jar (iva deltn Kowdy 
deométyy Bvra, Theoph. 1); or (b) with 
the immediately preceding mavr) tém@ 


Cuap. I. 3, 4. 


I thank God for your 
spiritual progress. 
Christ will strengthen you to the end, 


(Vulg., apparently Copt. and Arm., 
Cyril ap. Cramer Cat., Theoph. 2, al.), 
as carrying on the idea of catholic 
unity which seems to pervade the whole 
address. Most of the Greek commen- 
tators are in favor of (2), —a consid- 
eration of some moment, as showing 
the impression produced by the words 
on readers who spoke the language: 
the exegetical considerations, however, 
founded on the obviously unemphatic 
character of the first jua@yv, and the 
great awkwardness of the resumed con- 
nection after the intercalated words, 
are so strong that, with Cyril (see 
above), Estius, and most modern ex- 
positors, we adopt (4), and understand 
the words, not simply and frigidly as 
defining the locality, scil. ‘where they 
may be, and we may be’ (Theoph. 2), 
but as implying that every place that 
was locally theirs (comp. Zeph. ii. 11), 
was spiritually that of the Apostle and 
his helpers; ‘quod omnium una sit 
ecclesia,’ Estius. Any indirect refer- 
ence of -the words to the state of di- 
vision in the Church of Corinth (Phot., 
Vitringa, al.) does not seem probable. 
Though the Apostle, not uncommonly, 
uses expressions at the commencement 
of his Epistles which seem designed to 
indicate the purport and substance of 
the whole (see Wilke, Rhetorzk, § 146. 
d), he gives them in all cases a clear 
prominence (comp. Gal. i. 1), and not, 
as here, a subordinate and unemphatic 
position. 

3. Xdpus bpiv K7.A.] ‘ Grace be to you 
and peace ;’ ordinary form of salutation 
in St. Paul’s Epp., including both the 
xatpew of the Greek ) Acts xv. 23, James 
i, 1), and the pide (2 Sam. xviii. 28, 
1 Chron. xii. 18) of Oriental greeting, 
but each of these in its deepest and 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


29 


4 Et bed re 3) a , \Wp.e ia 
uxXaploTw TO Eo OU TTQVTOTE TrEPL ULV 


most spiritual sense, xdpis being the 
divine grace vouchsafed to man (see 
notes oz Col. i. 2), eiphyn the holy and 
blessed state that results from it. On 
this and. other forms of salutation in 
the N.T., see notes oz Zph. i. 2, Koch 
on 1 Thessal. p. 60, and especially the 
interesting treatise of Otto in Jahrd. 
fiir Deutsche Theol. (for 1867), Vol. XI. 
p- 678 sqq., where the formula is fully 
discussed, and referred for its origin to 
Num. vi. 25, 26. Kal Kuvptov 
K.T.A.] scil. kal ard Kuplov x.7.A. So 
expressly Syr., Arm., both of which 
repeat the preposition. The union of 
the two genitives under the vinculum 
of a common preposition is one of the 
numberless hints we find scattered 
throughout St. Paul’s Epistles of the 
consciously felt and recognized co- 
ordination (opp. to Reuss, 7%éo/. Chrét. 
v. 8, Vol. 11. p. 77) of the First and 
Second Persons of the blessed Trinity ; 
Tov Tarps kat Tov Tiod Semvis thy iod- 
tnta, Theod. As here, a prep. usually 
associated with the causa principalis, 
so, in Gal. i. I, a prep. usually asso- 
ciated with the causa medians, is used 
in common reference to both substan- 
tives; comp. notes oz Gal. /.c., and in 
regard of inferences, in this subject, 
from the use of prepositions, Water- 
land, Works, Vol. 1. p. 51 (ed. 2). 


4-9. Hopeful thanksgiving for the 
Spiritual state of the Corinthian Church. 
4. Hixapioras tO Ow pov] ‘7 thank 
my God;’ so Rom. i. 8, Phil. i. 3; 
comp. Phil. iv. 19, Philem. 4, and, as a 
good commentary on the pronoun, 
Acts xxvii. 23, 08 eiut, @ kad Aarpetw. 
The expression t¢ @eg wou probably 
marks that feeling of vivid love and 
devotion which, on every recital and 


30 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. I. 4; 5. 


éml TH xapiTt TOD Ocod 7H Sobcion iwiv ev Xprot@ *Inood, 


Ul \ 
56ru év mavti émAouticOnte ev aiT@, ev TavTl hoyw Kai Taoy 


remembrance of the blessings of the 
present, seems ever to have been freshly 
called up into the heart of the thank- 
ful Apostle; amd moAAjs aydarns Tov 
kowbdy mdvtwy Ocdv idtomoetrat, Theoph. 
The pov is omitted by Westc. and Hort 
on important, but apparently insuffi- 
cient, authority. On the present use 
of evxapioreiv (‘quod pro gratias agere 
ante Polybium usurpavit nemo,’ Lo- 
beck, Piryn. p. 18), see notes oz Phil. 
i. 3, and on its four meanings, see notes 
on Col. i. 12. tmepl tpov] ‘con- 
cerning you,’ ‘de vobis,’ Beza. Though 
it may be admitted that the distinction 
between the use of wept and bmép (ch. 
x. 30, Eph. i. 16, v. 20) in the present 
and similar expressions is scarcely ap- 
preciable (see notes oz Gal. i. 4, and oz 
Thess. i. 1), still there is a shade of dis- 
tinction which it may be desirable to 
attempt to maintain in translation (as 
here: so Rev.), and which was prob- 
ably fe/t by the writer. The distinction 
of Weber (cited in note oz Phil. i. 7), 
viz. —‘ ep! solam mentis circumspec- 
tionem, drép simul animi propensionem 
significat ’ is sometimes clearly recogniz- 
able. On the primary meaning and ety- 
mological affinities of rep{, see Donalds. 
Crat. § 177 sq. éml TH Xapete] ‘for 
thé grace ;’ ground and basis of the 
thankfulness, the prep. with the dative 
marking as usual that on which the 
action rested as its foundation; see 
Winer, Gr. § 48. b., and notes oz 
Phil. i. 13, iii. 9. This foundation was 
God’s grace, ze. His gifts of grace to 
the Corinthian converts (ai S00cioa av- 
tois Swpeal, Theod.), more distinctly 
specified in ver. 5 sqq. év Xpirra 
*Inoot] ‘22 Christ Jesus, i.e. in mem- 
bership and vital union with Him: He, 
and He alone, was the blessed sphere 


in which the gift of grace was bestowed ; 
see notes oz Gal. v. 6, Hooker, Serm. 
1. Vol. 111. p. 763 (ed. Keble), and 
the valuable comments of Plitt, G/au- 
benslehre, § 55, Vol. 11. p. 76. The 
assumed equivalence, in the present 
case, of the expression to 6: Xp. ’Ine., 
though sustained by the high authority 
of Chrysostom (see his note zz Zoc.), is 
clearly to be rejected. All that can 
properly be said is, that the form of 
expression may perhaps be chosen to 
remind the reader that, outside that 
blessed sphere, and so apart from the 
‘meritum Jesu Christi’ (Est.), the grace 
here spoken of could not have been 
imparted to the Church of Corinth. 

5. Stu év wavtl K.7.r.] ‘that in every- 
thing ye were made rich in Him ;” ex- 
planation of the foregoing emi rH xaputi, 
and more detailed statement of the 
ground of the evxapioria. The mAoivros 
was from God (Chrys.), without any 
limitation (2 Cor. ix. 11; comp. I Tim. 
vi. 18), and in the same blessed sphere 
(€v adr@): ‘ditamur zz Christo eo'quod 
simus Corporis ejus membra,’ Calvin. 
ev tavtl Adyw Kal maon yao] ‘27 
every form of utterance and every form 
of knowledge, scil. ‘in every power of 
outward expression and every form of 
inward knowledge; specific illustration 
of the preceding év mayri; God’s gifts 
had been so richly bestowed that they 
had both knowledge (of divine truth; 
comp. Clem.-Rom. 1 Cor. i.) in the 
heart, and power to express it with 
the lips, kat vojoa kai cireiv ixavol, 
Chrys. The meaning of Adyos is some- 
what doubtful, as it may mean, either 
(z) the word spoken to the Corinthians, 
and so ‘preaching or teaching’ (De 
Wette, Maier, al.), or (4) the word they 
spoke, scil. ‘utterance’ Auth., Rev., 


Cuap,. I.'s, 6. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


31 


yvoce, ®xalas To waptipiov Tod Xpictov éBeBawwOn ev vipiv, 


‘verbo’ Vulg., Clarom., Copt., Arm. 
The latter meaning seems substantiated 
by the closely parallel passage, 2 Cor. 
viii. 7, where the associated substan- 
tives mlotis, yvaots, orovdh, being all 
subjective, render it highly probable 
that the remaining Adyos is also to be 
taken in a similarly subjective sense; 
6 Adyos ka) Tb eyywopevov Epunvevet, Orig. ; 
comp. 2 Cor. xi.6. So Meyer, Neander, 
al., and appy. all the Greek expositors. 
6. Kaas according as,’ ‘sicut’ 
Vulg., Clarom.; reference of the émAour. 
«.7.A. mentioned in the preceding verse 
to the cause, owing to which, and in 
accordance with which, it took place ; 
see’ Eph. i. 4, Phil. i. 7, al. In cases 
like the present the particle has some 
what of a causal reference (7d kads, 
avt) tod 8’ av, Theoph.—but too 
strongly), the primary idea of accord- 
ance with (‘even as’) passing into that 
of cause or reason (‘inasmuch as’), 
but yet not being wholly obliterated; 
see notes oz ph. i. 4, and on the 
particle generally, notes oz Gal. iii. 6. 
7) paptiproy tod Xpiorot] ‘che testi- 
mony of Christ ;’ gen. objecti (Winer, 
Gr. § 30. 1. a); the witness concerning 
the Lord delivered by St. Paul and 
his fellow-teachers, the Gospel-message 
generally ; 7b Knhpvyya tod Xpiotod, 
Theoph. ‘testimonium Christi, vel de 
Christo, Evangelium vocat,’ Calvin; see 
2 Tim. i. 8, and notes 27 /oc., and comp. 
‘Acts 1.8. Origen appears mainly (see, 
however, the whole passage) to have 
regarded the gen. as a gen. sudjecti, 
‘6 Xpiords, tv obtws dvoudow, apxiuaptup 
éorl, ap. Cramer, Caten. Vol. v. p. 123; 
so teo Hofmann zz /oc., comparing 7d 
paptuptoy tov @eov, ch. ii. I.; but, as 
Neander rightly observes, such an ex- 
pression as ‘the testimony given by 
Christ, or emanating from Christ’ (gen. 


originis) is unusual, and indeed, in a 
general context like the present, un- 
precedented. €BeBarwH9n év dpiv] 
‘was confirmed among you,’ scil. by the 
gifts of the Holy Ghost vouchsafed to 
you (comp. xapfouat:, ver. 7), whether 
in the form of inward graces and deep- 
ened faith, or of outwardly manifested 
powers; ia onuelwy kad xapiros, Chrys., 
‘per concomitantia charismata et mi- 
racula,’ Bengel. The bulk of the older 
commentators regard the BeBatwos as 
more exclusively rising from wzzraculous 
gifts (Theod., Theoph., al.); Meyer and 
most later expositors, following Calvin 
and Calov., urge the preceding ka@ds 
and the use of BeBaodv in ver. 8 as 
limiting the reference to the deepened 
conviction arising from faith, and from 
the ‘interna Spiritus virtus,’ Calvin. 
Neither restriction here seems desir- 
able: the Apostle says that the spir- 
itual enrichment of his converts is due 
to, and in accordance with, the con- 
firmation of the Gospel by the Spirit ; 
this may in some cases have been of 
an outward, and in others more of an 
inward nature ; woAA@y Oaupdtwr, apdrou 
xdpiros, Chrysostom. The é byiv is 
thus more naturally ‘among you’ than 
‘in animis vestris;’ it was the general 
state of the Corinthian Church (observe 
the suas in the words immediately 
following), the grace of God bestowed 
generally among them, that called forth 
the edxapiotia; comp. 2 Cor. xii. 13, 
and for a discussion on the whole 
subject, Vitringa (‘de testimonio Christi 
in credentibus confirmato’), Oés. Sacr. 
111.1. Some difficulty may be felt, and 
has been felt, in regard of the state- 
ments of this verse and of the para- 
graph generally, when contrasted with 
the general tenor of the Epistle The 
natural solution appears to be this, 


32 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


CHAP: 


Va a lal ’ 
‘dare twas wn voTepeioOar év pmdev’ yapioparti, amreKdeyopuévous 


THY aroKdduyw tod Kupiov jyav “Incood Xpuctod: 8d5 Kab 


that the Apostle is here speaking of 
the Church of Corinth as a whole, and 
@ potiorz parte (consider Acts xviii. 10), 
but that elsewhere, when compelled to 
reprove and to censure, he is dealing 
with sections and portions of the gen- 
eral whole that unhappily deserved the 
altered tone. 

7. dore bpas K.7.A.] ‘50 that ye do 
not fall short in any spiritual gift, ‘are 
as richly endowed with all spiritual 
blessings as any other Christian commu- 
nity;’ result of the BeBalwois, and so, 
statement on the negative side of what 
in ver. 5 was expressed on the positive 
side. Some expositors make the éore 
dependent on ver. 5 (comp. Chrys., 
Bengel), but it seems much more in 
accordance with St. Paul’s closely 
linked style to adopt the more imme- 
diate connection with what precedes: 
that the members of the Corinthian 
Church did not suffer want (sorepetoOat 
is passive, not middle: comp. Phil. iv. 
12, and émAovtic@nte, ver. 5) in any 
spiritual gift was a consequence (&oTe) 
of the confirmation above specified. 
On the use of dete (‘consecutionem 
alicujus rei ex antecedentibus signi- 
ficat,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 771) see 
notes oz Gal. ii. 13. 

Xaplopari] ‘97/t of grace ;’ in its widest 
sense, as including on the one hand, 
in accordance with ver. 5, inwardly 
working gifts of the Spirit, and on 
the other—in accordance with the use 
of the word in passages of apparently 
similar import (Rom. xii. 6,1 Pet. iv. 10 
sq., and, probably, 1 Tim. iv. 14; see 
notes) and its prevailing reference in 
this Epistle (cap. xii—xiv.),— specially 
given powers (kal yap mpopntikis je- 
réAaxov xdpitos, Kal yAdrTas Siapdpors 
€AdAour, Theod.), and manifestations of 


them. Most of the older expositors 
limit the meaning to the latter sense; 
modern expositors mainly adopt the 
former. In a passage of this general 
nature it seems best to include both. 
Under any circumstances it is certainly 
not to be limited ‘to gifts of insight 
into the unseen world’ (Stanley),— 
an interpretation obviously narrow and 
insufficient. On the term xdpicua (exc. 
I Pet. iv. 10, only used by St. Paul), see 
Cremer, L70/.- Theol. Woérterb.s.v.p. 581. 
GrexScxopévous] ‘patiently waiting for,’ 
while thus blessed and endowed; anar- 
throus participial clause, defining the 
present spiritual state and, so to say, spi- 
ritual attitude of the Corinthian Church. 
While thus enjoying once promised 
and now present blessings they were 
patiently and earnestly waiting for the 
greater promise of the unfolding future; 
TovTwy S& amndatoate iva thy Sevtépay 
emipdveray Tod Swripos mpoouelyyre, 
Theod. It is certainly worthy of no- 
tice how, even in that one community 
in which we might have expected to 
find it otherwise, the deep and uni- 
versal feeling of the whole early church 
(comp. Phil. iii. 20, 1 Thess. i. 10, 2 Tim. 
iv. 8, Tit. ii. 13, Heb. ix. 9) was in no 
sensible degree modified: though indi- 
viduals might doubt (I Cor. xv. 12), 
yet, in the Corinthian Church generally, 
the watchword, the ‘tessera’ of love 
and hope, was ever the same — uapav 
a0d, I Cor. xvi. 22. On these words 
see an eloquent sermon by Archer 
Butler, Sermons, Series I. 1. On the 
nature of the sv called ‘tertiary’ pred- 
ication involved in the participial 
clause (‘awaiting as ye are’), see 
Donalds. Gv. § 489, and on the meaning 
(‘studiose constanter expectare’) of 
the significant double compound éer- 


Cuap. I. 8. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


33 


BeBaiwoet twas Ews TéXoUS avEyKAHTOUS ev TH TpuEépa TOV Kupiov 


déxeoOu, Fritz. Lritssch. Opusc. p. 150 
seq., notes oz Gal. v. 5, and on Phil. 
iii. 20. viv arokdduy K.T.A.] 
‘ the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ; 
here not merely the ‘ manifestation ’ (I 
Tim. vi. 14, 2 Tim. iv. 1, 8, al.), but, 
with more distinct reference to its 
supernatural character (Neander) and 
to the holy mystery that still sur- 
rounded it, the ‘revelation,’ 2 Thess. 
i. 7, I Pet. i. 7; daroxdAvpuw Aéyel, Setxvds 
or wav wh Sparat, Origen (Cramer Caz), 
and, in words nearly identical, Chrys., 
and Theoph. zz /oc.; compare Plitt, 
Glaubenslehre, § 79, Vol. 11. p. 390. 

8. 8s kal BeBardoe tpas] ‘wo shall 
also confirm you’ consolatory mention 
of the blessing that would be vouch- 
safed to the patient waiting specified 
in ver. 7, the és referring to the nearer 
and now more prominent subject 
*Inoods Xpiords (tis BeBaice; *Ino. Xp., 
6 Adyos, 7 copia, Origen), and the kal 
pointing out the correspondence (see 
notes oz Phil. iv. 12) of the BeBaiwous 
with the amexdox7. Bengel and many 
recent expositors (e,7. De Wette, Osi- 
ander, Hofm., al.) refer the $s to the 
preceding @edés, ver. 4, but a reference 
so distant is here especially harsh and 
forced, and, it may also be added, not 
in harmony with the Apostle’s usual 
mode of connection; this use of the 
relative pronoun in linking verses to- 
gether by a continuous reference to the 
leading word that has zmmediately pre- 
ceded being a distinct characteristic of 
the Apostle’s style ; comp., for example, 
Eph. 1..6 sq., Col. 1, ¥5;, 18,/27 sq., and 
see the .remarks on this passage in 
Winer, G7aiS. ecinn. It is the 
remark of Chrysostom zz Joc. that in 
no other Epistle do we find the name of 
our Lord so frequently reiterated as in 
the present group of verses. In accor- 


5 


dance with this studied accumulation, 
the title rather than the pronoun (comp. 
Alf., Hofm.) recurs after the év 77 nuépa 
below, and gives to the whole clause a 
solemn and appropriate emphasis; 
comp: Eph. iv. 12, Col. ai. 11, and 
Winer, Gr. § 22.2, p.130. The BeBalw- 
ois here alluded to is the confirmation 
in hope, faith, love, and holiness which 
the Lord will vouchsafe to all that 
patiently wait for them ; compare Rom. 
xvi. 25, 1 Thess. iii. 13. éws téAovs] 
‘unto the end ;’ not merely of life, but, 
as the context obviously suggests, Tod 
aid@vos TovTov ; compare 2 Cor. i. 13, and 
the use of the cognate term ouyréAeia in 
Matt. xiii. 39, xxiv. 3, xxviii. 20. It is 
not justly to be inferred from expres- 
sions like the present that the Apostie 
was deliberately of opinion that the 
mapovola was near at hand (Mey., Maier, 
al., comp. Usteri, Zehré. p. 342, Reuss, 
Théol. Chrét. v. 19, Vol. I. p. 211 sq.); 
the utmost that can be said is, that such 
expressions are but reflections of that 
vivid hope and longing for the Lord’s 
speedy return (Heb. x. 37) which was 
the very life-current of the early 
Church. Love (2 Tim. iv. 8) may at 
times have made what it hoped for 
seem near, and, in passages of a purely 
practical nature, may have imparted a 
hue to words and thoughts; but, when- 
soever it was necessary to speak with 
precision, love merged into émyvéats, 
and revelation became distinct and 
explicit ; consider 2 Thess. ii. 1 sq., see 
notes oz 1 Thess. iv. 15, and compare 
(with some reservations) Messner, 
Lehre der Apost. p. 281 sq. 

aveykAnTous] ‘50 as to be blameless, un- 
accused,’ [ut absque accusatione sitis] 
Syr., proleptic use of the adjective, 
introducing a separate and further 
(tertiary) predication; comp. Matt. xii. 


34 


npav “Incod Xpiotod. 


i CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. I. 8, 9. 


%aruatos 6 Oeos, ds od ExANOnTE eis 


Kowwviav Tod Tiod avtod Incoov Xpictov tov Kupiov jpyov. 


13, I Thess. iii. 13, and (according to 
the true reading) Phil. iii. 21. On this 
usage, in which the adjective expresses 
the effect of the main verb, and so 
approximates to the consecutive sen- 
tence, sc. dare aveyka. eivat, see Winer, 
Gr. § 66. 3, p. 550, notes oz 1 Thess. 
Z. c..and Donalds. Gr. § 497 compared 
with § 442 dd. Meyer rightly observes 
that this blamelessness in the day of 
Christ is due to the power of faith and 
the consequent sanctification of the 
Spirit; the évéyxAntos will not appear 
in the last day as an avaudprntos, but 
aS aKkawhkKriows ev Xpiot@ (2 Cor. v. 17), 
preserved in that blest state to the 
end by the enduring efficacy of faith 
and the lastingly sanctifying power of 
God, comp. 1 Thess. v. 23. a] 
hepa tod Kup.] ‘the day of the Lord,’ 
scil. of His mapovola and subsequent 
judgment of the quick and the dead; 
time when the 7d avéyxanrov will be 
specially manifested ; comp. Winer, G7. 
§ 50, 5. The expression jjuépa Kupfov 
seems to be strictly parallel to the 
mn Eyppot the O. 2. (Joelle. us. /al.); 
but, in its exact reference and ampli- 
tude, varies according to the context; 
contrast 1 Thess. i. 10, in which the 
reference is more immediately restricted 
to the simple mapovota and the present 
passage, ch. v. 5, 2 Cor. i. 14, al., where 
the reference seems more especially 
limited to the final judgment; comp. 
Reuss, Zhéo/. Chrét. v. 19, Vol. I. p. 
223, but, in reference to the somewhat 
precarious deduction that these dif- 
ferent applications of the term imply 
a strict contemporaneity in the events 
specified, see the more sober comments 
of Messner, Lehre der Apost. p. 287, 
and the remarks of Plitt, Glaudbens/. 
§ 79, Vol. Il. p. 390 sq.; see also 


Dorner, Chr. Doctr. Vol. iv. p. 387 sq. 
(Transl.). 

g. murrds 6 Ocds] ‘ Haithful is God ;’ 
ground of this hope and confidence, 
—the faithfulness of God, and His 
trueness to His nature and promises ; 
év TE Torety & emaryyéAAeTat TioTds eoTt 
Aad@y, Athan. contr. Arian Il. 10, Vol. 
I. p. 478 (ed. Bened.) comp. ch. x. 13, 
1 Thess. v. 24, 2 Thess. iii. 3, and, on 
the relation of this to the other attri- 
butes of God, Plitt, Zvang. Glaubensl. 
§ 24, Vol. I. p. 180 sq. On the true 
objective significance of these attri- 
butes, see Martensen, Chr. Dogm. § 46, 
p- 91 sqq. (Transl.), Dorner, Chr. Doctr. 
§ 15, Vol. I. p. 200 sqq. (Transl). 

8 od ~eKAnOnTe] ‘by whom ye were 
called ;’ specification of that which more 
particularly showed God’s faithfulness 
— His having calied them into com- 
munion with Him from whom was to 
come their BeBaiwors (ver. 8): if Christ 
was not thus to confirm them, God, 
in calling them into communion with 
Christ, would have called them to no 
purpose, and would be mordés no longer ; 
comp. Meyer zz /oc On the present 
use of Sia in connection with the causa 
principalis, —‘usus ibi tantum admis- 
sus ubi nullam sententiz ambiguitatem 
crearet,’ Fritz. Rom. Vol. I. p. 15,— 
see the careful comments of Winer, 
Gr. § 47. i, and comp. Rom. xi. 36, Gal. 
i. 2, and notes 27 /oc. In such cases 
the prep. is not simply equivalent to 
id [Phot.; D!FG actually read 5¢’ of], 
z.e. it does not definitely mark the act 
as proceeding directly from the subject, 
comp. Donalds. Craz¢. § 179) and the 
result of his immediate power, but» 
rather as generally brought about by 
him,—the nature of the agency, whether 
mediate or immediate, being left out 


CuaP. I. 9, 10. 


Be united. I am told 
there are divisions 
among you. To give 
no cause for this I rare- 
ly baptized, 


of consideration; comp. Plato, Sym. 
p. 186 , # Te iatpieh, domep Aeyw, Taca 
dia ToD Ocovd TovTOV KuBeovaTra, and see 
Bernhardy, Syzt. p. 235 sq. The par- 
allelism of this use with the instru- 
mental, or as it is sometimes called, 
the ‘dynamic’ dative, is noticed by 
Kriiger, Sprach/. § 48.15.1. On the 
regular ascription of the KAjois of 
Christians to God the Father, see notes 
on Gal. i.6. Kowvwviay Tod viod 
avrod] ‘fellowship of His Son,’ scil. ‘in 
Him and with Him;’ ge. object, the 
verbal gen.(comp. Kriiger, Sprachl.§ 47. 
25.2) marking with its fullest and most 
inclusive force both the object shared 
in and the object with whom there was 
the rowwvla; see 2 Cor. xiii. 13, Phil. 
li. tr, and notes zz Zoc., and, on the 
varied and inclusive uses of the so- 
called gen. object?, the comments and 
illustrative list of examples in Rumpel, 
Casuslehre, p. 215 sq. This kowwvrta is 
not only the fellowship resulting from 
adoption (Gal. iii. 26; Theod.) and 
spiritual union with Christ (comp. Mess- 
ner, Lehre der Afost. p. 264) in this 
life, but also and more especially, as 
the Greek commentators rightly ob- 
serve, that fellowship with our Lord 
in his glory (comp. Rom. viii. 21) which 
will be vouchsafed to His faithful ser- 
vants in the world to come; «i drowévo- 
uev Kat cuuBactAcvoouev, 2 Tim. ii. 12; 
see also 2 Thess. ii. 14. The viodecia 
ever involves the kAnpovouia; when that 
inheritance is vouchsafed in its most 
full and blessed measures, the roivwvla 
with our Lord is realized and complete ; 
comp. Rom. viii. 17, and see especially 
Usteri, Zehré. 11. 1. 2, p. 186 sq. 


I, THE PARTIES IN THE CHURCH AND 


Tr CORINTHIANS. 


85 


10 TIapaxanr® Sé buds, adedpol, dia Tod dvop- 
atos Tov Kupiov nuav ‘Incood Xpictov, va 


THE TEACHING OF THE APOSTLE (ver. 

1o-ch. iv. 21). 

10-16. Lxhortation to unity, and 
censure of party spirit. 
10. IIapakade St «.t.A.] ‘But L exhort 
you, brethren ;’ transition by means of 
the slightly oppositive and contrasting 
d¢€ (‘novam rem cum aliqua oppositione 
infert), Klotz, Devar. Vol. II. p. 336), 
from the introductory edxapioria and 
the accompanying assurance to the 
subsequent warning: ‘it is true you 
have been thus called, dzz, that you may 
not fall short of that calling, I exhort 
and warn you;’ ‘severius eos tractare 
incipit,’ Calvin. The appended ade qot 
somewhat softens the address, but at 
the same time gives it an individualizing 
earnestness; comp. ch. vil. 29, x. I, 
Psy Om Caley Wise TiGanive el 2yealey elie 
verb mapakadeiv is very frequently used 
in the N. T. (more than a hundred 
times), and with all gradations of 
meaning, from that of eztreaty and 
consolation to that of exhortation and 
admonition ; here the verbseems clearly 
used in its latter and more austere 
sense, not ‘obsecro,’ Vulg., Clarom., 
fEeth., or ‘rogo,’ Syr., Copt. (comp. 
Chrys., Theoph., al.), but ‘hortor,’ 
Bengel, Neander, Hofm.; see notes ov 
Eph. iv. 1, and on Thess. v. 11. 
Sid Tod Svdpatos K.T.A.] ‘dy the name 
of our Lord Jesus Christ ;’ ‘using His 
name as the medium of my exhorta- 
tion;” see Rom. xii. 1, xv. 30, 2 Cor. 
x. 1. The name of the common Lord 
is in itself a call to unity (comp. Hofm.), 
and a protest against unchristian di- 
vision ; see Eph. iv. 5, and comp. Wilke, 
Rhetorik, § 146, p. 472. tva Td 
avrd «.7.A.] ‘that ye all speak the same 
thing ;’ purport of the exhortation 


36 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. I. to. 


\ > \ “¢ / \ \ in > id n / R \ 
TO QUTO REYHTE TWAVTES, KAL MN TD EV UUW TYLOMATA, NTE oe 


blended with the purpose of making 
it: tl eotw d Tapakadr@; iva, pyot, cvp- 
povire mdvres kal wh oxi(nobe, Theoph. 
On this use of fva, which may be called 
its subfinal use, see notes ox Eph. i. 17, 
Phil. i. 9, Winer, Gr. § 44.8, and comp. 
Wilke, het. § 79, p. 273. The exhor- 
tation of the Apostle is, first, that there 
should be a consensus oris in their out- 
ward profession of religious belief (con- 
trast ver. 12), and secondly (ire 5é& 
K.T.A.), a consensus animorum in respect 
of their inward feelings and persua- 
sions; comp. Polyb. A//st. v. 104. 1, 
Aéyew &v kal ravrd, Aristot. Pol. Il. 3, 
mavras 79 avTd Aé€yel wd pev KUAdy. 
There is not necessarily involved in 
the expression any assumption of in- 
ward community of sentiments (comp. 
Est.): this, as Chrys. and the Greek 
expositors rightly observe, appears af- 
terwards. What the Apostle is now 
speaking of is the wexp: pnudtwv dudvoa, 
Chrys. As it was, ‘diversa dicebant,’ 
Bengel; comp. ver.12. Kalpa)q.t.A, 
‘and that there be not divisions among 
you ;’ substantially the same thought 
expressed negatively (comp. Rom. xii. 
14), but with a further and more inclu- 
sive reference to sentiments and feel- 
ings; ‘schisma, discidium animorum,’ 
Bengel; see notes on ch. xi. 18. The 
antithesis in what follows thus _be- 
comes much clearer; ‘tribus loquendi 
formulis eos ad concordiam hortatur 
Primo talem consensum inter eos re- 
quirit, ut una sit vox omnium; deinde 
malum tollit quo unitas scinditur et 
dissipatur; tertio rationem exprimit 
vere concordiz, ut scilicet mentibus et 
voluntatibus inter se conveniant,’ Calv. 
The term oxiouara (‘ rents,’ ‘ divisions’) 
is here, by the év, buiv, clearly limited 
to divisions within the Church, —di- 
visions arising from the diversity of 


sentiments and persuasions: comp. 
John xii. 40-43, which is a good com- 
mentary on this place. fre Se 
Katnpticpévor] ‘but rather that ye be 
made perfect ;’? statement ‘e contrario,’ 
and on the positive side, of the essen- 
tial purport of the exhortation, and of 
that which ought to take the place of 
the state of things forbidden in the 
preceding negative clause. The exact 
distinction between this use of 5é after a 
negative and the more usual ovx—aAAd 
has not always been stated with com- 
plete precision; comp. é.g. Wilke, Rez. 
§ 83, p. 271, Delitzsch on fed. ii. 4. It 
may be observed, then, that in ovh.— 
G@AAd, the aAAd calls attention to the 
preceding negative, and so sharpens 
the form of the antithesis; but that in 
ob followed by 6¢, the dé does not point 
back to the negative, but, with some- 
what of its primary force (see Donalds. 
Crat. § 155), simply places in juxtapo- 
sition to the negative clause an affirm- 
ative clause, which may limit conditions, 
or totally reverse the substance of 
what has preceded, according to the 
context; comp. Klotz, Devar. Vol. I. 
p- 360, Hartung, Partzk. Vol. I. p. 171. 
In other words, o#«—daAAd marks simple 
and formal antithesis between contigu- ' 
ous words and clauses; ov—5é, op- 
position arising from sentiments and 
contrasted context; compare ch. ii. 
Io: see also Heb. ii. 6, iv. 13, ix. 12, 
X. 27, xii. 13,—an Epistle in which 
this form of antithesis is apparently 
more common than elsewhere in the 
N.T. The fuller formula od povov—dé 
is found in Plato; see the examples in 
Stallbaum’s note, de Legg. I. p. 666 E, 
—a treatise where it occurs several 
times. The exact meaning of 
katnpticpévor is perhaps here slightly 
doubtful. The question is whether the 


Cuap. I. 10, 11. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


37 


, > A > Lal a. 2 A > A , 11 > , 
KATATLOMEVOL EV TO AUT@ vol Kal év TH AUTH yvoun. | ednroOn 


predominant meaning is (a) s¢mply eth- 
ical, scil. ‘brought to completeness,’ 
‘made perfect,’ ‘perfecti, ’ Vulg., Cla- 
rom., TéAeiot, CEcum. (Suid. katapri¢w 
TeAel@), or (6) metaphorical, scil. ‘coag- 
mentati,’ Bengel, ‘apte cohzerentes,’ 
Calvin. — with reference to the quasi- 
physical meaning of the preceding oxic- 
pata; comp. Matt. iv. 21, Mark i. 19. 
The prevailing use of the word in the 
N.T. (comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 11, Gal. vi. 1, 
I Thess. iii. 10, Heb. xiii. 11, 1 Pet. v. 
10), and the fact that oxiouara, in pas- 
sages like the present (see John vii. 
Mow tka xy TO) ti © Ole) Xt, 1S, Xi.) 25)) 
does not seem to present any concep- 
tion based on the physical aspect of 
the word (‘scissure,’ Clarom.) seems 
to warrant our deciding in favor of (a): 
so Syr., Copt. (sebz02, ‘ parati’), and ap- 
parently all the Greek commentators ; 
comp. notes oz Gal. vi. 1, and the good 
collection of exx.in Steph. Zhesaur. (ed. 
Dindorf and Hase) s.v. The remark of 
Hofmann is just,—the Apostle does 
not exhort that the oxicuata should be 
repaired, but that there should be none 
at all. év TO atte vot «.T.A.] 
‘in the same mind and in the same 
judgment ;’ sphere in which the rardp- 
Tots was to take place, and the com- 
pleteness to be shown; comp. Heb. 
xiii. 21. The Corinthians were to be 
united and made perfect in the same 
mind and realm of thoughts (comp. 
Rom. viii. 23, Eph. iv. 17), scil. they 
were to think the same things, — and 
in the same judgment and application 
of those thoughts (comp. 1 Cor. vii. 
40), scil. they were to arrive at the same 
mental decisions in reference to the 
subjects to which thought was directed ; 
see Hofmann zz doc., who has well 
unfolded the meaning of this clause. 
The reference of vots more to the ¢he- 


oretical (kata thy wiorw, Theoph.), and 
of yvéun more to the practical (kata 
Thy aydmnv, Theoph.), though derived 
from Chrysostom, is not in harmony 
with the prevailing meaning (‘senten- 
tia,’ ‘judicium,’ Meyer) of yvéun in the 
Neila Seer Nets xx) Cor vile 215540; 
2 Cor. viii. 10, Philem. 14, Rev. xvii. 
13, 17, and notes oz Philem. l.c. On 
the meaning of vos, see Cremer, Bzd/.- 
Theol. Worterb. p. 439, Weiss, £207. 
Theol. § 86 b., and notes oz Phil. iv. 7, 
and oz I 712. vi. 5. Some good com- 
ments also will be found in Delitzsch, 
and in B76. Psychol., p. 212 (Transl.). 
II. €5ndoOyn yap k.t.A.] ‘For it was 
declared, or made clear, to me,—not 
simply ‘significatum est,’ Vulg., but 
‘made d7Aov,’ ch. iii. 13, Col. i. 8, — 
explanatory confirmation of ver. Io, 
and grounds for the foregoing exhorta- 
tion ; va wy apvhowvTar udptupas Tapd-yet, 
Theoph.; comp. Chrys. adepot 
pov] Not without full pertinence. The 
soothing and kindly address shows the 
real spirit in which the charge (ét: 
pides K.T.A.: ‘rem suo nomine appellat,’ 
Bengel) is preferred, which the Apostle 
now feels compelled to specify, and 
the true tenor of the implied rebukes 
that follow; wdAw ddeAgods avtovs dvo- 
pacer Kay yap 7 SjAoy 7d Gudptnua ovdey 
KwAvet adeAovs KaAety ér1, Chrys. 
tmd tov Xddys] ‘by those of Chloe's 
household ;’ whether children (Grot., 
Bengel), members of thefamily (Theod., 
al.), or slaves (Stanley), we cannot say; 
comp. Winer, Gr. § 30.3. Itis equally 
doubtful whether Chloe was a Corin- 
thian (comp. Syr. ‘miserunt’), or a 
member of the Church of Ephesus, 
known to the Corinthians, and speci- 
fied as one who, it would be felt, 
could be thoroughly relied on. The 
former opinion is, perhaps, s/ightly 


38 


r CORINTHIANS. 


GHAP: 11,42. 


yap pou trepi tuav, adeApou pov, UTO THY Xrons OTe Epides ev 


upiv eiow. 


more probable; the members of the 
household might have come over, not 
necessarily to give the information, but 
for purposes of trade, etc., and they 
might have used the opportunity to 
disclose (dnAody; comp. Bengel) the 
state of things in Corinth. The name, 
as Meyer observes, was a surname of 
Demeter (Anuttmp evxAoos, Soph. Ed. 
Col. 1600); comp. Pausan. Gr. Descr. 
22, dtu epiBes ev tpiv cior] 
‘that there are contentions among you.’ 
The use of the term épides (comp. Titus 
iii. 9, where the plural appears under 
the later form @pets) seems clearly to 
show that the divisions in the Church 
had not as yet gone beyond internal con- 
tention and dissension. As, however, 
the next verse shows, these contentions 
were displaying themselves in a practical 
way, and party divisions were now ac- 
tually in existence (#, ver. 10; not 
yevnta): the oxicuata were the mani- 
festations of the @pides, and are eluci- 
dated in the following verse. 

12. Aéyw St todro] ‘7 mean this ;’ 
cadnvelas éverev, CEcum.,—the 65€ 
introducing, with that s/ight form of 
antithesis (see Klotz, Devar. Vol. Il. p. 
361) which in English is often best 
preserved by the omission of all 
particles, a further specification of the 
%pides, and the rodro, as in uses of this 
formula similar to the present (ch. vii. 
35, Col. ii. 4, are obviously different), 
directing the attention to what is to 
follow; see Gal. iii. 17, Eph. iv. 17, and 
notes 77 Joc., and comp. Todro 5é gnu, 
1 Cor. vil. 29, xv. 50. ékacros 
tpeov] ‘each one of you, ‘each one 
among you;’ the evil was general and 
prevailing; ov yap mépos GAAd Td Tay 
émevéueto Tis exkAnoias 7 pbopd, Chrys. 
éy pév elt Tlatdov] ‘7 for my partam 


2éyw 6€ TovTO, STL ExaoTos tuov réyers “Ey@ 


of Paul,’ sc..* belong to the party that 
specially claims him as the exponent of 
their views, adopt the principles of 
his teaching;’ the mwéy preparing the 
reader for further assertions of party 
differences which follow (each 6¢ 
marking difference not only from the 
first member, but from the rest; see 
Biumlein, Parték. p. 164), and the 
idiomatic gen. after the auxiliary verb 
(see Winer, Gr. § 30. 5) purposely 
leaving the exact nature of the relation 
undefined. On the wide variety of 
meaning in the genitive when thus 
associated with the auxiliary verb, see 
esp. Rumpel, Caszslehre, p. 227 sq. 

A full description of the various 
opinions that have been entertained 
on the debated subject of the Parties 
at Corinth does not fall within the 
scope of this commentary. It may be 
observed however, by way of a general 
summary, — (a) that they seem to have 
been real parties, not yet necessarily 
very sharply defined, but still plainly 
distinguishable, and self-distinguishing ; 
consider Clem. Rom. Cor. 1. 47, where 
the language seems to imply the former 
existence of defined party ; tpooexaAl@nre 
GmrootéAols pewaptupnuevais. (4) that it 
seems probable that the Corinthian 
Church was broken up into four loosely 
defined parties, these four declarations 
including all such declarations as 
were then put forth among them 
(see Winer, Gr. § 66. 3, g, rem.), and 
that the names were not merely assumed 
names (Chrys. and the Greek exposi- 
tors), — with this the Xpiorod would be 
inconsistent, — but really as here speci- 
fied; (c) that the order is probably 
designed, not, however, as expressive 
of the apostle’s consciously felt humil- 
ity (‘gradatio, qua Paulus se infimo 


Cuap. I. 12. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


39 


pev eipe Ilavnov, "Ey dé ’Arod\\o, ’Eya dé Kyda,’Eyo 5é 


loco ponit,’ Bengel), but as reughly 
marking the successive emergence of 
the parties which are specified. First, 
by the nature of the case, came the 
Paul-party; then the Apollos-party 
(comp. Acts xix. 27); then, probably by 
the evil working of emissaries from Je- 
rusalem, the Cephas-party (see below) ; 
then a body of Christians, who, in 
disavowing and setting themselves 
against all other parties, themselves 
lapsed into a party, and became guilty 
of using the very name of the Lord as 
a party-name; (d@) that this last-named 
was really a party, and, as such, merited 
the same censure as the rest. In 
claiming the Lord’s name as belonging 
more especially to themselves (comp. 
2 Cor. x. 7), and as marking their 
independence of human teachers, they 
became, in effect, as sectarian as those 
from whom they separated themselves : 
‘illi qui a Christo Christianos se dice- 
bant, quatenus ab aliis sese per schisma 
separabant, illo nomine sibi solum 
appropriato, schismatis rei erant,’ 
Calov.; comp. Hofm. 27 doc. 

The copious literature on this subject, 
and the many theories that have been 
advanced will be found very fully 
discussed in the last edition of Meyer’s 
Commentary on this verse, and sum- 
marized in his /ztroduction (§ 1). The 
difference of opinion is most marked 
in reference to the ‘Christ-party’ and 
its relation to the others. On this 
last-mentioned party the reader will 
find a careful, exhaustive, but not con- 
vincing, treatise, by Beyschlag, Stzd. 2. 
Krit. for 1865, Part 11. p. 217 sqq) A 
few comments may now be made on 
the remaining details of the verse. 

* ArroNAS] ‘ of Apollos ;’ gen. of "AmoAAGs, 
Acts xviii. 24; comp. notes ov Zi7tzs iii. 
13. Immediately after the name of the 


Apostle is that of one with whom his 
own name would naturally have come 
into immediate connection and contrast. 
The eloquent Alexandrian arrived at 
Corinth afew months after the Apostle 
had left it, and was permitted to water 
what St. Paul had planted (1 Cor. iii. 
9). The teaching of the pupil of 
Aquila and Priscilla (Acts xviii. 26) was 
undoubtedly identical in substance with 
that of St. Paul (consider 1 Cor. iii. 6, 
and comp. Acts xviii. 4 with xviii. 28), 
but it is scarcely doubtful that in man- 
ner it was different. The eloquence of 
the fervid Alexandrian was soon favora- 
bly contrasted with thestudied plainness 
(1 Cor. ii. 1; comp. 2 Cor. x. Io) of the 
teaching of St. Paul. What was felt 
to be so different in manner was soon 
assumed to be so in matter; preference 
readily passed into partisanship, and 
partisanship into the sectarian divisions 
which are here condemned. It does 
not seem unlikely that the distinct un- 
willingness of Apollos to return soon 
to Corinth (1 Cor. xvi. 12) was due to 
his knowledge of all this, and was a 
practical protest against it: BAémwy 
otdow Kal tapaxhy év tH bm’ avtod 
exkAnala, ovk émedina (eto TOU Témov, GAAS 
mapexepnoev, Origen, ap. Cramer, Cat. 
Vol. v. p. 340. Knoa] ‘of 
Cephas;’ Jewish designation of St. 
Peter (Aram. x5"5 usually adopted in 
St. Paul’s Epp. (1 Cor. iii. 22, ix. 5, xv. 
5, Gal. i. 18, ii. 9; the more familiar 
Tlérpos occurs only Gal. ii. 7, 8), and 
here repeated without any studied 
significance (opp. to Estius). Those 
who made use of this name were 
probably Judaizing teachers who, ar- 
riving at Corinth soon after the return 
of Apollos to Ephesus, might have 
readily availed themselves of the 
growing spirit of division to put for- 


40 
Xpiotov. 


ward the higher authority of the 
Apostle of the circumcision (Gal. ii. 7, 
9), and to introduce with a factious 
nationality (comp. 2 Cor. xi. 22) obser- 
vances in non-essentials (comp. ch. viii.) 
which were alien to the freedom of the 
Gospel. It would seem from the tenor 
of this Ep. and especially of 2 Cor. (see 
Chex "5; Xi. 11, 12, al.) that their 
teaching involved more of personal 
opposition to St. Paul than of that 
deliberate advocacy of Judaism (Gal. 
iv. 10, 21, vi. 12) which marks the false 
teachers of Galatia; comp. Meyer, 
Einleit. § 1, p. 3- eyo 8 Xpicrod] 
‘and I of Christ;’ spiritually proud 
utterance of yet a fourth party (as- 
suredly not of the Apostle, Est., al.), 
who in their recoil from what they 
might have justly deemed sectarian 
adherence to humaz leaders, evinced 
even a worse than sectarian spirit, by 
claiming to stand pre-eminently in the 
same relation to Christ, the common 
Lord, in which the others claimed to 
stand to Paul, Apollos, or Cephas: év 
Yon tdée Kal roy Acomdrnvy kal Tods 
dovaAous éridecav, Theod.; see Hofmann 
in loc..p.17 sq. The ultimate tendency 
of the first three parties was, by parti- 
sanship, to place each one of their 
human leaders on a level with the Lord 
their master; that of the fourth party, 
by their spiritually-proud claim of the 
common Lord as more especially their 
own leader, not only so to lower Him, 
but, by the very nature of their claim, 
to rend His unity. Each evil tendency 
is rebuked in the questions that follow ; 
the second mainly in the first question ; 
the first, in the questions that follow. 
13. pepépirtat & Xpiords] ‘ Hath 
Christ been divided?’ Emphatic and 
even indignant question (Chrys.), im- 
mediately suggested by the éyd 5& 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


CHap. I. 2, 33. 


18 Meuépiotat 6 Xpiotos; py Iladros éotavpdOn 


Xpiorod, but still, as its very form seems 
to hint (contrast the more answer- 
requiring mw? «.7.A. below), so far gen- 
eral, as in fact to amount to a state- 
ment of the only hypothesis on which 
the above-mentioned state of things 
could be supposed to exist : épwtd pdvor, 
@s @uodoynuévov Tov atémov, Chrys. As 
the exact force of the words has been 
somewhat differently estimated, it may 
be well to narrow discussion by laying 
down the following preliminary posi- 
tions: (1) the whole tenor of the verse 
seems to show that the present clause 
is not assertory (Meyer; Zachm., Westc. 
and /fort.), but interrogative; so ap- 
parently all the Vv. (Goth., ed. de 
Gabel., may seem doubtful), and all 
the Greek expositors (Theod. notices, 
but does not adopt the former view), 
and the majority of the best modern 
commentators. The assertory form, 
as Hofmann well says, is a ‘rhetorical 
impossibility.’ weueprorar cannot mean 
‘hath been apportioned,’ scil. to one 
party (see Wordsw. 27 /oc., who urges 
Rom. xi. 3, © Corniwils 7.2) Cots xis 
but not conclusively; the idea of dis- 
partition lies in all the passages), but, 
in accordance with its usual and lexical 
meaning (diavewew pepic@s, Hesych.), 
‘hath been divided, portioned out,’ 
‘divisus est,’ Vulg., Clarom., Syr., 
Goth., Copt., Arm.; comp. Mark vi. 41, 
Luke xii. 13. (3) Xpio7dés must have the 
same meaning here as in ver: 12. In 
both it means, not the ‘mystical body 
of Christ’ (Est., al.), nor the ‘ Evan- 
gelium Christi’ (Grot.), but simply the 
historical and personal Christ. 

Upon these premises the meaning of 
the clause would seem to be ‘ Hath 
Christ been divided?’ ‘Hath he been so 
portioned up (kateréuere troy Xpiordy, 
Chrys.) that one party can claim Him 


Cnap. I. 13, 14. 


1 CORINTHIANS 


41 


imép ipav, 4 eis 7 Svowa Ilavdov éBarticOnte ; 4 evyapioTa 


A an ¢ IQs € a > / > \ / \ fu 
TO Oc Ori ovdéva tuov eBartica et wn Kpiorov kai Iaiov, 


14. T@ @cG] These words are omitted by Westcott and Hort, with BN, but 
retained in the other edd on what would here seem to be preponderating 


evidence. 


more especially as their leader, and so 
put themselves in contrast with others 
that claim Him only mediately and 
and indirectly ?’ The fourth party 
did not probably deny that the others 
had Christ kata wépos, and mediately ; 
but for themselves they claimed to 
have Him directly and exclusively. See 
Hofmann 7z /oc., who has investigated 
this difficult clause with much care. 
The fault of Meyer’s interpretation 
(independently of the maintenance of 
the assertory form),—‘ Christ is thus 
divided into sect-Redeemers,’? would 
seem to be this, that the case would 
then be not a pepiouds of one Christ 
into parts, some claiming to have Him 
exclusively, and implying that others 
only had Him in part (consider 2 Cor. 
x. 7), but really a multiplication of 
independent Christs, to which neither 
the text nor the circumstances of the 
case appear to point. The Corinthian 
dissensions, though grievous, did not 
involve such a disruption of Christian 
unity as must have followed a setting 
forth of ‘sect-Redeemers;’ contrast I 
Cor. xi. 18, xiv. 23. pi) Ilatdos 
KTA.| ‘ Was Paul crucified for you?’ 
rebuke, by means of a question very 
clearly involving a prompt negative, of 
the first three parties specified in ver. 
12; ef €repos Toy bréep Hua averAn oTaupdr 
avtod Kal Acydueda, Cyril. ap. Cramer 
Caten. On the subjective question ui 
«.T.A. (reference to the opinion or 
knowledge of the person interrogated), 
see Donalds. Craty/. § 190, Kiihner, Gr. 
§ 512. 4, and, on the meaning of imép 
in passages of this nature (primarily 
6 


‘in commodum’ and thence with the 
more special idea of redemption ; see 
Tit. ii. 14), notes o7 Gal. iit 1 3.. Lachm. 
reads mept, but with insufficient evidence 
(BD!; Goth., Syr. apparently, Copt. 
apparently), and in opp. to the general 
usages of dmdp in reference to Christ’s 
death; consider, however, 1 Thess. v. 
10, where the enhanced uncial evidence 
makes the decision more difficult. 

4H eis TO Svopa K.T.A.] Sor were ye bap- 
tized into the name of Paul? scil. as 
that of him whom ye were to confess 
and believe in; comp. Matt. xxviii. 19: 
& hv Tay moray ekaipera wdvov Kal TOAATS 
Kndeuovias, TadTa TlOnot Toy oTavpoy Kab 
70 Banticua, Chrys. ; ‘crux et baptismus 
nos Christo asserit,’ Bengel. On the 
meaning of Bamri(ew «is, See notes on 
Gal. iii. 27, and Hofmann, Schriftd. 
Vol. II. 2, p. 163. 

14. edXaptora To Ocd] ‘ Z give thanks 
to God ;’ ‘Dei providentia factum esse 
agnoscit, ne inde arriperent occasionem 
in se gloriandi,’ Calvin. The Apostle 
recalls with thankfulness the fact that 
he had not personally baptized at 
Corinth; he does not specify this as 
the result of design on his own part 
(see below), but as providentially so 
ordered. We may apparently infer 
from the passage that there were some 
at Corinth who dd lay a stress (comp. 
Theod.) on the person of the baptizer 
(some of the leaders of the Cephas- 
party mzght have boasted of such a 
relation to St. Peter), and that their 
number would have been increased if 
St. Paul had baptized many with his 
own hands; see Hofmann zz Joc. p. 22. 


42 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. I. 15, 16. 


' b / 
1 fya pa) Tus elrn OTe eis TO ewov dvoua éBamticOnze. 1° éBar- 


la > \y.2 U Yi 
Tica 8é Kal Tov Srehava oixov: Aovrrdv ovK oida et Twa addov 


éBartica: 


I was sent to preach, 
and that not in the 


Od yap améorerev pe Xprotos Barrivew, 


language of an earthly wisdom that comes to nought, but simply, Christ crucified. 


15. €Bamric@nte] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly 
preponderating authority: Rec. éBdrrica. 


Kplorov kal Taiov] ‘Crispus and Gaius;’ 
the former the ruler of the synagogue 
contiguous to the house of Justus, Acts 
xviii. 7, 8; the latter, the hospitable 
man mentioned by the Apostle in Rom. 
xvi. 23 as 6 Eévos pov, Kal bAns Tis 
éxkaAnotas. The prominent position of 
the former, and the close connection 
of the latter with the Apostle, may 
account for his having personally bap- 
tized them; ‘viros amplissimos Paulus 
suaé manu baptizavit,’ Bengel. Crispus 
is said (Const. Afost. vii. 46) to have 
been afterwards Bishop of A®gina. 

15. tva, poy Tus etary] ‘27 order that no 
one might say ;’ not exactly the definite 
purpose of the Apostle (Aéye: 5& kad 
Thy aitiav 6? hv moAAovs ovK eBarticer, 
Theod.), but, as the context seems to 
suggest, that involved in his providen- 
tially directed course; comp. 2 Cor. 
i.9. This is one of those numberless 
cases in the N.T. in which the exact 
shade of meaning of iva must be fixed 
by the context; see notes ox Eph. 
edie eis TO Epov Svopa ‘ zz7Z0 
my own name ;’ scil. with any implied 
or included reference to my ownname; 
not, however, as marking any antithesis 
to the use of the name of Christ (De 
Wette), —for Christian baptism could 
only have been in His name, — but as 
hinting at the personal relation which 
might have thereby been contracted 
with the baptizer; see Hofmann zz 
loc., and Schriftb. Vol. I. 2, p. 163. 

16. €Bamroa 8€] ‘7 baptized too;’ 
the dé here appending with a slightly 


corrective force (see Winer, Gr. § 53: 
7,6) another exceptional case, which 
had just come into the Apostle’s mem- 
ory. The oppositve and copulative 
here approach very near to each other, 
the oppositive, however (almost ‘yes, 
I baptized’), perceptibly predominat- 
ing; see Kiihner, Gr. § 526. 2. 

Kal Tov Lrehava otkov] ‘the household 
of Stephanas as well ;’ a household af- 
terwards mentioned in terms of so 
much respect (ch. xvi. 15, 17, amapxy 
Tis *Axatas) that we may suppose it to 
have been from the very first of a tone 
and character that deserved the excep- 
tional act on the part of the Apostle: 
‘Stephanas quis fuerit non constat,’ 
Est. Aoutrov] ‘ further,’ ‘ ceeterum,’ 
Vulg.; in reference to what remained 
to be added to complete the foregoing 
statement. On the use of the word 
(Acts xxvii. 20, 2 Cor. xiii. 11, 2 Tim. 
iv. 8), and its distinction from the more 
definitive 7d Aourdv (Eph. vi. 10, Phil. 
ili. I, iv. 8, 2 Thess. iii. 1), see note ov 
1 Thess.iv. 1,and oz2 7im.iv.8, and for 
similar instances of its use, especially 
in later Greek, Schweigh, Polyd Lex. 
s.v.,and the examples in Steph. Zhe- 
saur s.v. (ed. Dindorf and Hase). 


17-25. ‘ The nature of the Apostle’s 
teaching and the justification of it.’ 
17. Ob yap «t.X.] ‘For Christ sent 
me not to baptize ;’ emphatic and par- 
tially abrupt confirmation of the prin- 
ciples on which he thus providentially 
acted (871 .. ueta Heidovs kal oravias 


Cuap. I. 17, 18. 


: CORINTHIANS. 43 


> >? & hs ivf lal 
GAA evaryyednifecPar, ovk ev copia doyou, va pn KevoOn o 


\ a axe la) 18 c Xo \ c lo) a Ta) \ 
oTavUpOS TOU ploTou. Oo AOYOS yap O TOU OTavpov TOLS EV 


éBartioa, Phot.), and specification of 
the nature of his teaching (ver. 17-31) ; 
this paragraph, with the greater part 
of what follows (to ch. iv. 21), being 
directed against those who possibly in- 
juriously contrasted the plainness of 
speech of the Apostle with the elo- 
quence and rhetorical power of Apollos 
(Mey., Hofm., al.). The statement in the 
text is not to be explained away (‘com- 
parate dictum,’ Phot.; Severian zz Zoc.). 
Teaching and preaching were the du- 
ties primarily and even pre-eminently 
enjoined on the Apostles generally 
(Mark xvi. 15, Luke xxiv. 47; observe 
the subordination of the participial 
clause in Matt. xxviii. 19, and most 
certainly so in the special case of St. 
aul; comp. Acts ix. 15, Xxil. 15, 21, 
XXvi. 16 sq., and on the form of oix— 
G@AAd, notes on ver. 10, and the good 
remarks of Winer, Gr. § 55. 8. 

ovKkev cola, Adyou] ‘ 20t 72 wisdom 
of speech ;’ clearly not ‘wisdom which 
consists in mere words’ (Stanley), but 
as Origen, ev tpavdoet A€tews : negative 
clause dependent on the preceding 
evayyeaA., and defining, distinctly and 
objectively (ov«), that element or form 
in which the preaching was zo¢ to be 
manifested. It may be doubted whether 
the codia refers principally to the form 
or to the swbstance of the teaching. The 
tenor of the immediate context (ver. 19, 
contrast uwpla, ver. 18) does not seem 
to warrant an exclusive reference to 
the former (comp. DeWette zx Zoc.), 
but the mode of expression (év copia 
Adyov) and general purport of this por- 
tion of the Epistle (see Calvin 77 Joc.) 
seem certainly to justify our deeming 
this to be the primary and principal 
reference; so rightly Theodorus-Mops. 
(kaAAtActia), Theodoret (evyAwttla), and 
apparently the great majority of the 


Greek commentators. It need hardly 
be said that the expression copia Ad 
you is not to be confused with Adyos 
copias (Grot., comparing 2 Pet. i. 16): 
the cogia has the emphatic position, 
and is prominently specified, as, so to 
speak, the element appertaining to the 
Adyos in which the preaching was not 
to exist. On such forms of expression, 
comp. Winer, G7. § 34. 3. tva 
pi K-t.A.], ‘272 order that the cross of 
Christ might not be made void ;’ scil. 
emptied and deprived (Rom. iv. 14) of 
its proper and inherent efficacy; pur- 
pose of the preceding negative limita- 
tion; el yap orwpvaAla Kai devdrntt Adywv 
expauny, ovr by edelxOn Tod oTavpwHEvTos 
7 Svvauis, Theod. The cross of Christ 
was the substance and purport of all 
Apostolic teaching; if this were put 
forth év copia Adyou its holy power 
would become weakened and its heart- 
reaching energy (comp. Origen 77 Zoc.) 
perilously impaired. Origen gives a 
short but good hint to all preachers 
when he says, — xpela ov ToaovTov Adyou 
dcov Svvduews (Cramer, Cazen. p. 19). 
18. 6 Adyos yap K.T.d.] ‘ Hor the word 
(preaching) of the cross,’ —not so much 
the ‘narratio,’ Grot., or the ‘report 
concerning,’ Barrow (Creed, Serm. 25), 
as, more precisely (comp. evaryyeAl Ceo Oat, 
ver. 17), the ‘preaching and teaching,’ 
‘pradicatio de Christo crucifixo,’ Beza; 
confirmation of the preceding definition 
of purpose fva wh «.7.A. If the cross 
of Christ, the substance of Apostolical 
preaching, had no vital power, of which, 
under the above-named circumstances 
it would run the risk of being emptied, 
the teaching of the cross would not be 
what experience shows it to be (comp. 
DeWette) both to the a&moAAtuevo: and 
ow(duevot. The genitival relation is 
slightly, doubtful: rod oravpod may be 


44 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. I. 18, 19. 


drrodrvpévars popia éotw, Tois 6€ cwlopévors july Svvapus Ocod 


€oriv. yéyparras yap Amox® THv copia THY copay, Kat THY 


regarded as implying the ethical content 
‘the teaching of which the substance 
and purport is, etc.’ (see notes on ch. xii. 
8, and oz 1 Thess. ii. 5), or, more simply, 
as an ordinary vez. objecti, rd mept Tod 
oravpov khpuyua, Theod., sim. Phot.; see 
Winer, Gv. § 30. 1, Kriig. Sprachl. § 47.7. 
On the emphasizing article before rod 
otavpov (Titus ii. 10, al.) see Winer, 
Gr. § 20, 1, and comp. Kiihner, Gr. 
§ 463. 3. Tots atroddvpévors] ‘Zo 
those that are perishing,’ to those that 
are on the broad way leading to eternal 
améAewa; see 2 Cor. ii. 15, iv. 3, 2 Thess. 
ii. 10, and notes 7 Joc. The dative is 
not so much a dative judiczi (De Wette ; 
voulCoyres, Chrys.) as of zzterest (‘com- 
modi’ or ‘incommodi,’ as the case may 
be); the teaching not only seemed, but 
proved to be (‘rem denotavit ex ef- 
fectu,’ Grot.), both to the one class 
and to the other, what the Apostle 
here specifies; see Winer, G7. § 31. 4, 
Kriiger, Spvachl. § 48. 5, compared with 
§ 48. 3. 3. The two classes are roughly, 
but with substantial correctness, de- 
fined by Theodoret (amd tod réAous Tas 
mpoonyopias tiOeis), the former as of 
amotoortes, the latter as of miotevorTes. 
The one class is, by faith, on the way 
to eternal life; the other, owing to 
deepening unbelief, is on the way to 
eternal death; comp. John iii. 18. The 
tense has thus not its ethical, but its 
simple temporal force: it does not 
here mark that which is sure to happen 
(Wilke, Rez. I. 10), but simply that 
which is taking place at the time speci- 
fied; see the present writer’s Broad 
and Narrow Way, ~. 44, and comp. 
Weiss, Bibl. Theol. § 88, Vol. 1. p. 8, 
§ 96, p. 54 (Transl.). On the relation 
between the divine and human activity 
in the work of salvation, see the lucid 
comments of Dorner, Chr. Theol. § 


130. 2. 3, Vol. Iv. p. 183 sq. (Transl.). 
pwpla] ‘folly,’ something that not only 
seems but proves to be to them, — to 
their inner life and conscience, — fool- 
ish, weak (comp. ver. 25), and unsatis- 
fying; wwpla Te kal GAayla, Plato, pin. 
p- 983 E (cited by Meyer): the gospel 
is hid from them in its real saving sig- 
nificance; see 2 Cor. iv. 3, and comp. 
Weiss, Bibl. Theol. § 88, Vol. I. p. 10 
(Transl.). The reason why it proves 
so is specified ver. 22. fpiv] not 
placed after rots cw(ouevos to modify 
the sharpness of the contrast that might 
otherwise have seemed to exist between 
the jets and the amoAAvuévas, but to 
leave the emphasis resting where it is 
designed to rest, and to preserve the 
real antithesis between the participles 
in all its distinctness. Sivapis 
cod] ‘the power of God’ (article elided 
by the predicative éeoriv, comp. Green, 
Gr. of V.T. p. 35; Middleton, Gr. Art. 
3. 3. 2, and notes oz 1 Thess. iv. 3); 
not merely ‘illud zz gwo Deus vim de- 
clarat,’ Beza (comp. Grot., Meyer), but, 
as in Rom. i. 16, the power directly 
and essentially. The Adyos rod oravpod 
is in itself the power of God; it not 
only includes the power, but itself ‘is 
that power to every believing soul; 
comp. Severian 27 Zoc. 

19. yéypamra: yap] confirmation from 
Scripture, not of the assertion ov ey 
copla Adyou (Alf.), but of the truth of 
the preceding statement; cira delxvuat 
7d Ths mpopphaews apevdes, Theodoret. 
The declaration that the preaching of 
the Cross is verily the Svvauis @cod is 
substantiated by God’s own prophesied 
exemplification of that power. The 
passage is from Isaiah xxix. 14, mainly 
according to the LXX (a@erjew substi- 
tuted for xpiw, as expressing more 
distinctly and immediately the divine 


Cuap. I. 19, 20. 


cuvecw TaV cuveTav abeTHCw. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


45. 


20 a) }s i. a , 
Tov coos ; Tov ypaupatevs ; 


Tov acuventnt)s Tod ai@vos TOvVTOV; OvY! Eu@pavey Oo Oeds THY 


agency). What is there said more 
especially of God’s dealings with ref- 
erence to Israel is universally true of 
all His dealings with men, and rightly 
so cited by the Apostle; see the good 
comments of Hofmann 27 Zoc. 

Tiv codplay tTav copy, kal Thy k.T.A.] 
‘the wisdom of the wise and the under- 
standing of the understanding ones.’ On 
the distinction between godia (kowds 
amdvrwy ud@nors, Suid.), and odbveais (rept 
Gy amopfoeev ty tis, Aristotle), see 
notes 07 Col.i.g; and on derety (‘ad 
nihilum redigere,’ Vatabl.) notes oz 
Gal. ii. 21. 

20. TOU odhos where is the wise 
man?’ not necessarily ‘a wise man’ 
(Copt., Ewald, al.), the article being 
practically elided by the negative char- 
acter of the sentence: abrupt question 
(katapopikmtepoy Kéxpnta Tots Adyo.s, 
Chrys.), — based on the foregoing quo- 
tation, —implying the complete exclu- 
sion from all connection with the sub- 
ject involved in what precedes (salva- 
tion by the preaching of the Cross; tis 
+. €owoe Ka) Thy GANOeLay eyvdpioev ; OK 
€or ovdels, Chrys.) of those here speci- 
fied; comp. ch. xv. 55, Rom. iii. 27: 
Grotius is apparently right in deeming 
these clauses a reminiscence of Isa. 
XXxili. 18, rod ciow of ypaypatixot ; mov 
ciowy vi cuuBovaAevoytes ; k.T.A.; Comp. ib. 
xix. 12. The assumption of Ewald 
(Comm. p. 136) that the words are a 
quotation from some lost work seems 
wholly uncalled for. Whether 
there is any national distinction hinted 
at in the substantives, or whether 
copés is general and ypaumatets and 
ovv¢nt. special, but not national, exem- 
plifications (comp. Hofm.) is perhaps 
doubtful, The subsequent national 
references (ver. 22 sq.) seem rather in 
favor of the former, and also their order, 


the reference of ypayu. being to the Jew, 
and of ouv(yr. to the Greek (comp. 
Acts ix. 29), —not of copds to the Greek 
and ypayuu. to the Jew (Chrys., Theod.), 
while copds precedes as a general term: 
so DeWette, Meyer, and most modern 
commentators. ouvinryris] ‘disputer;’ 
not simply ‘conquisitor,’ Vulg., Copt., 
Goth. (sékareis), Arm., but, in accor- 
dance with the prevailing use both of 
the verb (Mark viii. 11, ix. 14, Luke 
xxiv. 15, Acts vi. 9, ix. 29) and the sub- 
stantive (Acts xv. 7, xxviii. 29 is doubt- 
ful) in the N.T., ‘disputator,’ Syriac, 
Erasm., al.,— the argumentative skill of 
the Gentile (Weiss, £767. Theol. § 102 a) 
being that to which the Apostle is par- 
ticularly pointing. The substantive 
is only found here and in Ignat. Zp. 
cap. 18,—an adaptation of this pas- 
sage. Tod alavos ToiTov ‘ of this 
world,’ ‘ of this present evil age’ (comp. 
notes oz Lh. ii. 2), to which all such 
worldly disputants belong, but from 
and out of which Christians have been 
taken by the redeeming power of 
Christ; see Gal, i. 4, and comp. Rom. 
xii. 2. The genitive is to be referred 
to all the preceding substantives, being 
that which specially qualifies and char- 
acterizes them. ovXL épmpavev 
K.t.A.] ‘Did not God make foolish ;’ not 
merely show and prove it to be such 
(uwpay etev otcayC hrys.), but, with 
some reference to the judicial power 
of God, render it and make it such, 
‘stultificavit,’ Erasm.; comp. Rom. i. 
22. The suffix -x: probably strengthens 
the form of the negative as in vatx, 
hxt; Kiihner, Gr. § 512. 1. Tov 
Kéopov / the world, ze. ‘of the 
profane non-Christian world; kécpos, 
without any adjunct, having frequently 
in the N.T. (more especially in St. 
John) this or some similar shade of 


46 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. I. 20, 21. 


codiav Tov Kdcpov; 7 éreidy yap €v TH copia Tod Ocod ovK 


éyvw 6 Kocpos bia THS codias Tov Oedv, evdoxncev 6 Oeds dia 


20. kdouov] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg, Rev. Westc. and Hort, on very dis- 
tinctly preponderating authority: Rec. adds rovrov. 


ethical meaning; see Cremer, Worterd. 
S.V. p. 308, notes oz Gal. iv. 3, and 
comp. Reuss, 7héol. Chrét. v. 18, Vol. 
II. p. 208, note. 

21. émedih yap] ‘ For szzce’ or ‘seeing 
that;’ confirmatory explanation of the 
foregoing éudpavey 56 Ocds «.7.A., the 
former clause specifying the reason, 
the latter the manner of the uepaiverv. 
On the force of éreidH (‘that of éet 
qualified by 8%,’ Klotz) see notes ox 
Phil. ii. 26, and comp. Hartung Partik. 
Vol. 11. p. 259. The ydp is apparently 
here used more in its explanatory than 
in its directly confirmatory force; the 
Apostle explains the foregoing words, 
but also slightly roves the wisdom of 
the act specified. On this mixed force 
of the particle, see Kihner, Gr. § 544, 
I, notes ov Gal. iv. 22, and oz 1 Thess. 
ii. 1, and, generally, on the uses of the 
particle, the good dissertation of Klotz, 
Devar. Vol. i. p. 234 sq. év TH 
codla tod cod] ‘77 the wisdom of God;’ 
not that, owing to or by which (Riick.; 
comp. Alf.),—for ev when thus used 
in reference to agency or instrumen- 
tality necessarily marks the substantive 
with which it is associated as that 
which is employed by the agent (see 
notes oz 1 Thess. iv. 18), but the sphere 
zz which the ov« @yyw was manifested; 
see Hofm. zz /oc. Even in the clear 
light of that cogia, as evinced and 
displayed by God’s works (4 8a tay 
Epywv pawouéevn, Chrys., Theod.; ‘sa- 
pientiam relucentem in opificio mundi,’ 
Est.) the world (Jew and Gentile alike, 
though in different degrees) failed to 
arrive at the knowledge of God; comp. 
Acts xiv. 17, Rom. i. 19. De Wette 


and others include in the godia the 
revelation of God as made to the Jews 
in the O.T., as well as the revelation 
in the natural world to the Gentiles, 
on the ground that «écues must include 
both. This, however, as Neander 
rightly observes, seems out of harmony 
with the context. The statement is 
broad and general; in the light that 
God vouchsafed (‘in media luce,’ 
Calvin), though sufficient for the 
purpose, man failed to come to the 
knowledge of his Maker: comp. Weiss, 
Bibl. Theol. § 69. (a), (6), Vol. 1. p. 354 
sq. (Transl.), and on the general subject 
of heathenism and its consciousness 
of God, the admirable comments of 
Dorner, Chr. Doctr. §§ 65, 66, Vol. 11. 
Pp. 235 sqq. (Transl.). Sua. Tijs 
codlas] ‘by means of its wisdom ;’ means, 
which when used led only to the ov. 
éyvw. The means failed to secure the 
desired end; see Winer, Gr. § 47, i. 
The cogia here, it need hardly be said, 
has a different meaning to that which 
it has just above, the subjects to which 
the copia appertains being so widely 
different. evddnnoev & Ocds] 
‘ God was pleased,’ ‘ placuit Deo,’ Vulg.; 
comp. Luke x. 41, and on the use and 
four constructions (with éy and dat.,— 
eis and accus.,—simple accus.,—and, 
as here, infin.) of the late, and probably, 
Macedonian-Greek verb, cddoxety, notes 
on Col. i. 19, and Fritz. Rom. x. 1. 

Sia «THs pwplas Tod Knpvyparos] 
through the foolishness of preaching,’ 
the foolishness (obx) Tis ovens GAAG Tis 
elvat Soxovons, Origen) which was the 
substance and chief element of the 
preaching ; xnptyuaros being, not a gen. 


Cuap. I. 21, 22. 


THS pwpias ToD KnpvyuaTos THcaL TOvS TLaTEVOVTAS. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


AT 


22 earetd7) 


kat ‘Iovoaiotr onpueta aitodow Kai “Eddnves codpiav fntodow: 


22. onucia] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on vastly pre- 


ponderating authority: ec. onuetov. 


of apposition (De Wette, Alf., comp. 
Hofm.), but a form of the possessive 
genitive (gen. continentis), as in the 
expression T7s aAnOelas Tov evaryyeAlou, 
Col. i. 5; where see note. These geni- 
tives, of what perhaps may be inclu- 
sively termed genitives of zxner 
reference, are found in the N. T. under 
various but very commonly self-ex- 
planatory forms: see exx. in Winer, 
Gr. § 30. 2. B. The khpuyya, as the 
termination plainly shows, ‘is the 
matter preached’ (Hooker),— the mes- 
sage, not the delivery of it: in 2 Tim. 
iv. 17, Tit. i. 3, sometimes cited as ex- 
ceptions, the meaning seems to be 
substantially the same. TovS Tis- 
tevovtas] ‘them that believe ;’ slightly 
emphatic, and explanatory of .the 
seeming enigma: the objects of the 
saving evdoxia were not the collective 
members of a xéouos which relied on 
its own fruitless wisdom, but those 
out of it who put their trust in the 
gospel, and simply believe that which 
God was pleased to reveal; see the 
good comments of Chrys. zz Joc. on 
reasoning and faith, and for a sermon 
on the whole verse, Sherlock, Works, 
Vol. I. p. 93 sqq. (ed. Hughes). The 
aorist o@oa: is apparently due to the 
law of parity of tenses (Winer, Gr. 
§ 44. 7); it makes an act immediately 
dependent on and due to the eddoxla 
(‘quod statim et e vestigio fit, ideoque 
etiam certo futurum est,’ Stalb. Plato, 
Euthyd. p. 140), but is silent as to the 
duration of the action; comp. Kriiger, 
Sprachl. § 53. 6. 9. 

22. émeady‘ Since’ or ‘ Seeing that ;’ 
explanatory elucidation of the first 
statement in the preceding verse év rf 


copig— bv @cdy, the following verse 
elucidating the second statement. 
Hofmann, who has very carefully con- 
sidered the sequence of thought in the 
somewhat difficult connection of this 
passage, appears to regard this clause 
as elucidating the second member of 
the foregoing verse «v5.— o@aa Tois 
motevovtas, and especially the limi- 
tation involved in the slightly emphatic 
The drift of the 
verse would then be that Jews and 
Greeks, the two component parts of 
the «éouos, when invited to accept the 
kKnpuywa asked respectively for some- 
thing that might convince them, 
whether miracles or rhetorical logic: 
see Chrys., zz Joc. This is plausible, 
but not in true harmony with the tenor 
of the passage: the Apostle does not 
here appear to be, as often, substan- 
tiating each clause as he passes on, 
but rather making broad and general 
statements which he elucidates by an 
appeal to actual facts and circum- 
stances : non argumentatur Apostolus, 
sed jam dicta explicat,’ Grot. 

Kal "IovSator k.t.d.] ‘doth Jews ask for 
signs and Greeks seek after wisdom ;’ 
the one have such a practical ayvwota 
of the God they worship, that even 
when His Son was appealing to them, 
they ask for s¢gzs and wonders attesting 
the truth of His person and mission 
(comp. Matt. xvi. 4, John iv. 48); the 
other, with a similar a@yvwola, refuse 
to accept what is not intellectually 
brought home to them. On the 
connection xal—rxal, here serving to 
place both parties practically on the 
same level, as both alike evincing their 
éyvwola, though the manner in which 


Tovs mlioTevovTas. 


48 


ee 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


[Cuap. I. 23, 24. 


pels O€ Knptcoouev Xpictov éeotavpwpévov, "Iovdaious pév 


oxdvoarov éOverw bé pwpiav, * adtois Sé Tois KANTO, ’Iovdalous 


23. €@veow] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly 


preponderating authority: Rec.”“EAAnot 


they do it is different, see Winer, Gv. 
§ 53. 4, Kiihner, Gr. § 522. 1, Baéumlein, 
Partik. p. 148, and comp. notes 07 1 Zim. 
iv. 10. DeWette compares Mark. ix. 
13, but, as the order of the words appears 
to indicate, not correctly; the first kai 
is there ascensive, the second copula- 
ative. *Tov8ato.—" EAAnves 
without the article; not, ‘the Jews, . 
the Greeks,’ Copt., Auth., viewed as 
communities of which every member 
acted as specified (Middleton, 47#. iii. 
2. 2), but, ‘ Jews,’ ... ‘Greeks,’ as gene- 
ral classes, without special reference to 
the individuals composing them; see 
Kriiger, Sprachl. § 30. 3. 6 sq. 

23. hpets S€] ‘ While we ;’ appended 
clause (still partially under the vincu- 
lum of the é7ed), contrasting the jets 
and their principles of feeling and 
action with the two classes and their 
characterizing principles just specified 
in the preceding verse; jets 5€ av7) 
Meyer 
makes this verse the distinct apodosis 
émeid}) —8€) to ver. 22. This is gram- 
matically admissible (see Klotz, Devar. 
Vol. 1. p. 371, Hartung, Partzk. Vol. 
I. p. 184), but exegetically unsatisfac- 
tory: Apostolic preaching of Christ 
crucified did not depend as a sort of 
logical consequence on what preceded, 
but is specified as forming a clear and 
instructive contrast to it; ‘opponit 
Apostolus przedicationem Christi cru- 
cifixi sapientiz szeculari,’ Est., see 
Hofmann 27 loc. érravpwpévov] 
‘as crucified ;’ so the very reverse of a 
displayer of signs, or founder of a 
system of philosophy. To the Jewsa 
Xpirrds eoravp. was a oxdvdador, ‘quia 
crucis opprobrium eos turbavit et im- 


TovTwy Th Aéyouev; Chrys. 


pedivit,’ Est., comp. Gal. v. 11: to the 
Gentiles, ‘mera stultitia erat hominem 
crucifixum aut preedicare aut credere 
mundi salvatorem,’ Estius. On the 
axdvbadov of Christ crucified to the 
Jews, see the reff. and comments of 
Wordsw. zz loc. The miracles of our 
Lord’s ministry were to them negatived 
by his crucifixion: the crucified One 
could not be their Messiah; comp. 
Matt. xxvii. 42, 63 sqq. This verse 
forms the text for the first discourse of 
Abp. Magee, Works, Vol. I. I. 

24. avtots St trois KAnTois] ‘but Zo 
them the called, ‘ipsis autem vocatis,’ 
Vulg.; the avrots marking off, as it 
were, those alluded to from the classes 
to which they nationally belonged, but 
with which they had no personal and 
spiritual affinities; ‘es verstirkt den 
Begriff der Personlichkeit,’ Bernhardy, 
Synt. vi. 10. a. p. 287; see also Kiihner, 
Gr. § 468. 2. It may be observed that 
the Apostle does not here use iv 
(which perhaps, at first sight, might 
have seemed more natural), owing to 
the preceding xnptooouey which must 
obviously be supplied in the present 
verse. *Tovd. re kal “EAA.] ‘doth 
Jews and Greeks ;’ not only the former 
but the latter, the te—xal marking 
the addition of the “EAA. to the ’Iovd. 
already specified, and the gracious 
extension of the divine xAjjots to those 
afar off as well as to those nigh. On 
te—kat (closest form of copulative 
connection), see Winer, Gr. § 53. 4, 
Kiihner, Gr. § 522. 2, and the brief but 
exact comments of Donaldson, G7. § 
549 sq. Xprorov k.t.d.] ‘ Christ, 
God’s power and God’s wisdom ;’ ex- 
planatory apposition to the preceding 


Cuap. I. 24, 25. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


49 


Te kat “Eddnow, Xpiorov Ocovd Sivaww Kai Ocod codiav. * bru 


\ \ a a) hi ca) 2 , >? / \ \ 
TO w@pov Tod Ocod copwtepoy Tov avOpwTwv éoTiv, Kat TO 


> \ a a > f a ? / 
aa Qeves TOU Ocod tao YUpOTEpoV TOV avOperrov. 


25. avOpmmwv 2°24] So Tisch. Treg. Westc. and Hort, on preponderating 
authority, enhanced by internal considerations arising from the differently 
assigned position of éetiv: Rec., Lachm., Rev. add éotiv. 


Xpiordy éotavpwuevoy, the repetition of 
Xpicrév not being so much by way 
either of solemn (Alf.), or of trium- 
phant utterance (Meyer), as designed 
still more sharply and clearly to iden- 
tify Him that was to the Jews a oxdp- 
dadov and to the Greeks a pwpla, with 
Him that was to the called God’s power 
and God’s wisdom. To the called 
Christ crzczfied was both all that the 
Jew asked for,—God’s power in its 
truest conception (contrast ver. 22), 
and all that the Greek sought after, — 
God’s wisdom in its purest manifes- 
tation: copiay kal divamty ov Thy BedrynTA 
TOD fovoyevous mpoonydpevoey 6 Oeios 
améoroAos, GAAX Td Tep) Tod oTavpod 
Khpvyua, Theod. 

25. Stu x.T.A.] Reason for the fore- 
going appositional predication, Xpiorby 
@cod x.7.A., the cod codpiay being sub- 
stantiated by the first clause, the @cov 
dbrauiv by the second. Augustine has 
a few comments on this verse, de Docty. 
Ghr, IW. 13, Td pwpdv Tod Ocod] 
‘the foolishness of God, or, alittle more 
exactly, the foolish dealing of God, ‘quod 
stultum est,’ Vulg., the foolish thing 
(kata thy T&v avontwy Sdtav, Theod.), 
which comes from and is brought about 
by God, —the gen. being apparently a 
gen. of the ‘originating cause’ (see 
notes oz Col. i. 23, and on 1. Zhess. i. 
6), and the reference being both here 
and in the following clause to Christ’s 
atoning death on the cross; zeph 
Tov oTavpod Acywy Td pwpdy Kal 7d 
GoGevés, Chrys.» Td pwpdy is here not 
simply equivalent to the abstract uwpla 

7 


(Kriiger, Sprach/. § 43. 27: Bernhardy. 
Synt. vi. 27.2; comp. Rom. ii. 4), but 
seems chosen as more suggestively 
marking the specific and concrete fact 
(Xpiordv eotavpwuevov) which the Apos- 
tle has in his thoughts; see Meyer zz 
loc, note. Tov avOparev] ‘thax 
men are ;’ not here, by any ‘ compara- 
tio compendiaria,’ for tod copod Tar 
avOpamwy (Grot.; so De Wette, Maier, 
al.), but simply with inclusive reference 
to men viewed as a totality (ravytwy 
Tav avOpamwv, Chrys.; comp. Syr. [2d 
tv avOp.], ‘filiis hominis’), and perhaps 
with some faintly implied depreciatory 
tinge; see Bernhardy, Syzzz. I1. 5, p. 61. 
To avoid this seeming logical diffi- 
culty of a comparison between things 
and persons, Hofmann makes the pre- 
ceding 7d pwpdy tod Ocod a kind of 
periphrasis for ‘God in His (seeming) 
foolishness,’ and compares Rom. i. 109, 
ii. 4, viii. 3, and 2 Cor. iv. 17. This, 
however, seems plainly inadmissible, 
Ist, as not properly substantiated by 
the examples cited, and 2dly, as not 
consistent with the subordinated rela- 
tion in which (in such cases) the gen. 
appears commonly to stand to the 
governing noun; see esp. Rumpel, 
Casuslehre, p. 225, and comp. Winer, 
Gr. § 34. 3. The difficulty is more ap- 
parent than real, as the plural seems 
to carry with it so much of acollective, 
and thus partially abstract, reference, 
as to be very nearly equivalent to 
‘men and all their works;’ comp. Ne- 
ander 77 doc, 7d aoQevés ToD Ocod] 
‘the weakness of God, or, as above, 


by 


50 


Consider your calling; 
how God has chosen 
the foolish and weak 
things of the earth that 
all glorying should be in Him. 


the weak dealing of God, ‘ quod infirmum 
est,’ Vulg. [Clarom. omits the ‘ quod’ 
and ‘est’]; in reference to the seeming 
weakness (mpbs thy éxelyny imdAnbw, 
Origen) of the agency by which God was 
pleased to save sinners and redeem the 
world; nad toiro Se Sivauis Tod oiKovo- 
Khoavros Kal KatopOdcaytos év TS under 
Téoavtos Tovs avOpmmous, Kal eis Thy eis 
auTov tot ayaryovtos, Severian iz doc. 
(Cramer, Catez.). 


26-31. Confirmation of the forego- 
ing by a reference to the worldly position 
of the called. 

26. Bhdémere yap] ‘For consider ;’ 
émokévacGe, Chrys.; imperative, ch. x. 
18, Phil. iii. 2: so rightly Vulg., Syr., 
Copt., Heth., the confirmatory appeal 
to experience obviously requiring the 
more emphatic imperative; kal todtov 
Mdptupas avrovs Kade, Chrys. The ob- 
jection of Erasmus, repeated also by 
Beza, ‘nec enim admonet ut videant 
quod sciebant, sed quod perspicuum 
erat trahit in argumentum,’ is really of 
no force. The ydép, which Beza and 
Bengel somewhat singularly urge as in 
favor of the indic.) seems clearly to 
refer to the verse immediately, not to 
the preceding group of verses (De- 
Wette): the general statement (ver. 
27) is now confirmed by the special in- 
stance. Ti KAAoWw bpov] ‘your 
calling ;’? not ‘your condition of life’ 
(‘vite genus’), Olsh., but, in accord- 
ance with the regular usage of the 
word in the N. T. (ch. vii. 30 forms no 
exception ; see notes 77 Joc.), simply 
‘your calling,’ scil. by God,—here 
with reference to the individuals who 
received it, ob yap pdvov diSacKkddous 
iSi@ras GAAG Kal wadnTas éemnrctaro To.0l- 


b 


1 CORINTHIANS 


Cuap. I. 25, 26. 


26 Bnérete yap Thy Know tpav, adeddoi, 


OTL OV ToAAOL Gopol KATA TapKa, Ov TrONAOL 


tous, Chrys. The metonymy of Beza 
2, ‘ vocatio’ pro ‘vocatis’ is unneces- 
sary, and indeed untenable; compare 
Wilke, Rhetorik, p. 33- 

bri] ‘zat, introducirg the objective 
sentence dependent on the foregoing 
BaAémere, and specifying appositionally 
what it was, in reference to this calling, 
that they were to consider and to ob- 
serve; comp. Donalds. Gr. § 584, and 
Kriiger, Sprachl. § 56. 7. 12. 

cool kata wdpKa] ‘wse according to 
the flesh ;’ scil. kata thy mapéyta Blov, 
Kata thy ekwOev maldevow, Chrys.; or 
perhaps better and more inclusively, 
‘according to all that is of imparted 
by the Spirit;’ of wév eiot copol Kata 
odpka, of 5¢ kata Tvedua, Origen; see 
Est. zz loc., and comp. copia capkiKh 
2 Cor. i. 12, on the true meaning of 
odpé (‘the whole of man standing in 
opposition to the Spirit,’ Dorner, Chr. 
Doctr. § 73, Vol. 1. p. 319; ‘that which 
is characteristic of the earthly man as 
such,’ Weiss, 2267. Theol. § 68 4, Vol. 
I. p- 343), and the latent antithesis (in 
passages like the present) which it 
commonly involves to 7d Ivedua, see 
notes and reff. o7 Gal. v. 16, and comp. 
Delitzsch, 47d. Psychol. 5. 6, p. 439) 
(Transl.), Plitt, Zvang. Glaubensl. § 33, 
Vol. I. p. 280 sq. Itis doubtful 
whether (a) we are to regard gogo 
k.T.A. aS a predicate to the preceding 
ov moAAoi,’ ‘not many are wise, etc.,’ 
Meyer, De Wette, al., or whether (8) 
we are to supply éxAnénoay, suggested 
by the preceding «Ajow, and only not 
inserted because the change to the 
following éfeActaro was already emer- 
ging from ‘the inspired Apostle’s 
thoughts. The extreme flatness of (a), 
and the absence of the almost neces- 


Cuap. I. 26-28. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


51 


Suvatot, ov modXol evyevetss 27 GAAA TA wpa ToD KOcpou é&e 


, c L4 if he \ 4 \ \ > an a 
néEato 6 Oeds, Wa Kataxivyn Tos copovs, Kal Ta aobevi TOD 


Koopou é&eréEato 0 Ocds, Wa Katacyivy Ta ioyupa, * Kai Ta 


27. Katacxivyn Tovs copois] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, 
on vastly preponderating authority: Rec., rots copobs karacxbvy, but only with 


cursive mss. 


sary dua (in such a case) after moAAol, 
may perhaps rightly incline us to (8); 
so apparently Gicum. év 77 eAnoe TavTn 
kal 7H mioret ov HAGov moAAol cool. 
The Apostle passes almost instinc- 
tively from the passive into the .active 
form of sentence, and from the idea of 
the more restricted xAjors to that of the 
wholly unconditioned éxaoyh (1 Thess. 
i. 4), as thereby setting forth more 
fully and clearly (in harmony with the 
context) the wisdom and power of 
God. The «Ajots was ina certain sense 
dependent on the agency of man, the 
éxAoyn depended on God alone; comp. 
Hofmann 7x /oc. Suvarol] ‘mighty,’ 
‘in dignitatibus positi,’ Grot. It is not 
necessary to supply kata odpxa (Est.), 
durarés needing no qualifying term. 
evyevets] ‘7z00/e,’ scil. ‘ genere nobiles, 
quales [olim] Corinthi Cypselidae et 
Bacchiadez,’ Grot.; comp. Luke xix. 
12. The Corinth of the Apostle’s time 
had ceased to be the Corinth of the 
past; its old races had been destroyed 
(Pausanias, Grec. Descr. cap. 118, ed. 
Siebel.) and supplied in the time of 
Julius Cesar by Romans, mainly of 
freedman extraction (rod dmeAcvbepixod 
yéevous tAclorous, Strabo, Geogr. VIII. 
6. 63, ed. Kramer); see Finlay, /ist. 
of Gr. Vol. I. p. 66 sq. 

27. GAA TA Pwpa Tod Kdopov] ‘dat 
the foolish things of the world ;’ regularly 
contrasted statement on the positive 
side, and in a more inclusive form, of 
what God was pleased to choose,— 
the neuter marking the general cate- 
gory (Winer, Gr. § 27. 5; comp. notes 


AFG al. omit (accidentally ?) tva—é Oeéds (ver 28). 


on Gal. iii. 22), and the genitive that 
to which the 7a wwpd appertained and 
belonged (‘quz stulta sunt in mundo,’ 
Beza),—and out of which they were 
chosen; comp. John xv. 19. To take 
Tod kécuou as a gen. judicii (as mpds 
Tov Kécmov, Origen; Kata Thy TaY avOpe- 
mov ddéav, Theodoret, al.) weakens the 
whole force of the declaration: what 
God was pleased to choose was really 
pwpov, aobevés, and ayeves. 
eEeheEato] ‘chosen out, made ékdrexTol ; 
comp. Eph. i. 4, 2; Thess. 11.13. The 
studied repetition of the eeadtato 6 
@cdés with each of the three clauses 
marks the deliberate nature of the 
divine choice, and has, as Meyer 
observes, a kind of triumphant empha- 
sis. Wa katarX vvy K.T.A.] ‘that 
fe might put the wise to shame ;’ pur- 
pose of the éxaoyy. The choice of the 
foolish rather than the wise was a 
veritable putting to shame of the wise; 
peylorn Tay copay aicxivn Tape idiwraev 
qttac@a, CXcumenius. The Apostle 
passes in this clause into the masculine 
(rov’s copods), as thus marking the 
practically masculine reference of the 
contrasted Td uwpd Tod Kéopmov, but again 
reverts to the neuter as thus passing 
more easily into the climactic r& uh dvta 
of the last clause. On the general 
subject suggested by this verse (faith 
in relation to religion), see Newman, 
Univ. Serm. p. 194. 

28. Ta Gyevi TOD Kdopou] ‘Zhe base 
things of the world ;? direct and more 
immediate antithesis to the foregoing 
evyeveis, but enhanced by the following, 


52 


r CORINTHIANS: 


Cuap. I. 28-30. 


ayevh TOU Koopou Kal Ta éEovOevnpeva e€eXEEaTO Oo Oeds, Ta 1) 


” 7 ee , 29 iid \ , lal m 
OVTa, Wa TA OVTA KaTapyno7 * OTT@S [47) KQVUYNONTAL TACa oapé 


. , nr ~ 
é€vwotriov Tov Meov. 


30 €E avtov be tpeis eore &v Xpiota "Inood, 


28. Ta wh dvta] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., on apparently preponderating 


authority: Rec., Rev. [Westc. and fort], prefix kat. 


Decision is here very 


difficult, as nal has critically important support. 
29. év@miov tov Oeov] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on 
greatly preponderating authority: Rec., év@moy adtod. 


étovServnuéeva, and still more by the con- 
cluding and climactic 74 wh dvra. 

Te ph Ovra] ‘ (yea) things thatare not, 
counted and conceived of as not existing 
(5a Thy moAAHY ovdéveravy, Chrys.), or 
perhaps better as Hofmann, ‘ not really 
but only conceivably existing,’ the 
un giving its usual subjective tinge; 
see Winer, Gr. § 55. 5, but remember 
that as uf with the participle is the 
more usual Hellenic usage, it cannot 
always safely be pressed; see notes ox 
1 Thess. ii. 15. Origen (Cramer, Cat.) 
refers the 7a mi) dvta to all the preceding 
neuters, uwpd, aobev7, ayevn, and efoube- 
vnwéva, but, as the very structure of the 
clauses seems to show, not correctly : the 
studiously unconnected T& wh évta ob- 
viously stands simply in apposition 
and climax to the two adjectives which 
precede. Ta dvta] ‘which are,’ 
exist, and are really so to be recog- 
nized. Meyer very appositely quotes 
Pflugk on Eurip, ec. 284,— ‘ipsum 
verbum eivat eam vim habet ut signifi- 
cet 77 aliguo numero esse, rebus secundis 
florere, katapynon] ‘driug to 
nought ;’ the stronger and more appro- 
priate word karapyjon (katapy. axvpacat, 
Hesych.) naturally taking the place of 
kataoxvvy in the present climactic 
clause. Katapyeiy (as remarked ox 
Gal. v. 4) is a favorite word with the 
Apostle, by whom it is used 25 times, 
with several and varying shades of 
meaning. It occurs Luke xiii. 7, and 
Heb. ii. 14, but only 4 times in the 


LXX (Ezra iv. 21, 23, v. 5, vi. 8) and 
rarely in common Greek. 

29. 8trws k.t.d] ‘22 order that no flesh 
should glory ;’ final clause, gathering 
up the three preceding and more limited 
wva-clauses into one general enunciation 
of ultimate purpose. On the essential 
meaning of émws (here clearly to be 
recognized), and its distinction from 
tva, see notes oz 2 Thess. i. 12. 
pi) kavX. aca odpé] ‘ Hebraistic form 
of expression; the correct analysis of 
which seems to be érws maca capt uh 
xavx., the negation being closely united 
with the verb, and (so to speak) non- 
boasting being predicated of all flesh; 
see Winer, Gr. § 26. 1, and notes and 
reff. on Gal. ii. 16. Add also Fritz. 
Dissert. in 2 Cor. p. 24 sq. 
évatiov tod Oeod] ‘before God,’ ‘in 
conspectu,’ Vulg.,—standing, as it 
were, in His holy presence; comp. 
evérriov Tay avOpomwv, Luke xvi. 15, and, 
with very distinct local reference, Luke 
i.17. The expression occurs very fre- 
quently in the N.T. ; the nearly synony- 
mous évaytiov Tov @eov only once, Luke 
xxiv. 19; comp. Luke i. 8. 

30. €& atrod St «.7..] ‘But (to pass 
to what may indeed warrant Christian 
boasting) zt zs of Him that ye are in (in 
vital union with) Christ Jesus ;’ the 
verse not merely exhibiting on the 
positive side what had been previously 
exhibited on the negative (DeWette), 
but further, and by way of contrast, 
introducing the real ground and prin- 


Cuap. I. 30. 


r CORINTHIANS. 


53 


ds eyevnOn copia juiv aro Ocod, Sixasootvn Te Kal aryvacpos Kal 


30. copia juiv] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly 
preponderating authority: Rec., quiv copia. 


ciples of the true kavxnots specified in 
ver. 31; see Hofmann zz Joc. The 
et avtov, as its position clearly shows, 
is emphatic, and serves to mark, not 
their spiritual origin (réxkva Qcod 
éyeveoOe, Theoph.; so also Chrys., 
Theod., and several modern expositors ; 
comp. Gal. iii. 7), but, as the general 
tenor of the context (God’s sovereign 
power and wisdom) and the subsequent 
am @eov seem both to suggest,—the 
causal source (see Winer, Gr. § 47, b.), 
of their union in Christ. The éoré is 
thus not strongly predicative, and in 
effect isolated (maides abrod éoré, 514 ToD 
Xpiorod todTo yevduevot, Chrys.), but as 
the familiar eivat év Xp. (Rom. xvi. II, 
za@or, Vv. 07, Gal. comp. Rom. 
xvi. 7), and the insertion of dpets (as 
drawing rather to itself the emphasis) 
both seem to suggest, in close union 
with é€v XpiorG. On the formula civa 
év Xp., see Plitt, Avang. Glaubensl. § 
55, Vol. 11. p. 77, and comp. Hooker, 
Serm. itt. Vol. 11. p. 763 (ed. Keble). 

bs éyevyOn K.7.A.] ‘who became wisdom 
to us from God,’ scil. displayed to us 
God’s wisdom (codia yéyovev eis Beoyvw- 
alav, Sever.; comp. Col. ii. 3) in His 
whole manifestation, His whole life 
and works; more exact specification 
of the mercy and grace involved in the 
preceding declaration (7d SaaAés évder- 
Kvopevos THs Swpeds, Chrys.), the ds hav- 
ing a partially explanatory and slightly 
argumentative force (see notes oz Col. 
i. 18, and comp. Col. i. 25, ii. 10, 1 Tim. 
ii. 4, al.), and the amb Ocod (dependent, 
as the order shows, on éyevf@y), echo- 
ing the preceding é£ aidrod, and pointing 
to God as the ultimate origin of the 
gracious working: see Kiihner, G7. 
§ 430, where this distinction between 


j. 22: 


aay 


amé and é« is briefly but accurately 
specified; comp., however, notes oz 
1 Thess. ii. 6. On the passive form 
éyevnGnre, see notes on Eph. iii. 7. 

Sikartorivn te Kal ayacpds] ‘ doth 
righteousness and sanctification,’ —where 
righteousness, there sanctification, — 
the te kat binding the two present 
substantives closely together (Hofmann 
very improbably connects dtxkatoo. with 
copia), and making them parts of a 
common predication; see especially 
Donalds. Craty/. § 189, 195, Wilke, Ret. 
§ 43, p. 160, and the copious list of exx. 
there collected, Winer, Gr. § 53. 4, p. 
389, and, for the distinction between 
this expression and kal—xal, notes oz 
1 Zim. iv. 10. The two substantives 
thus—by their theological affinity — 
closely associated, serve, with the azo- 
Au’tpwors that follows, to illustrate and 
exemplify the foregoing copia. Our 
Lord, the Apostle says, became to us 
wisdom, yea, verily, both righteousness 
and sanctification, —and redemption ; 
righteousness (comp. Jer. Xxxiii. 16), in- 
asmuch as through faith in Him we 
were made righteous before God by 
His merits and death (see Rom. iii. 17, 
and comp. Usteri, Zehrd. i. I. I, p. 
89); and not only righteousness, but, 
in close union therewith, sazctification, 
inasmuch as, by the indwelling of His 
Holy Spirit (Rom. viii. 11), He leads us 
into abiding holiness and newness of . 
life ; comp. dixasoodyn eis ayiacudy, Rom. 
vi. 19, and see Messner, Lehre d. Apost. 
p- 239. On this text, see Butler (W. 
A.), Serm. 1. Vol. II. p. 1 sq., and the 
brief but clear summary of Hooker, 
Serm. WU. 2; and on the two united 
aspects of the work of Christ, see 
Messner, Lehre d. Apost. l.c.; comp. 


54 1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. I. 30-II. 1. 


amodvtpwots, * iva Kalws yéypartat “O xavydpevos év Kupio 


/ 
Kavyacbw. 


So I came to you pro- Il. 
claiming in my weak- 
ness Christ crucified, 
et not with words of 
uman wisdom, but in the power of God. 


also Reuss, 7/éol. Chrét. Vv. 14, Vol. I. 
Pp. 144, 174. kal arokttpacts] 
‘and (a third particular being added to 
the two closely associated foregoing 
particulars; comp. Hartung, Partik., 
Vol. I. p. 98 sq.) vedemption ;’ not 
merely from past sins and present suf- 
ferings (comp. Heb. ii. 15, 1 Pet. i. 17), 
but also, with a more inclusive reference 
to the final and complete redemption 
(TeAclay amaddAayhv, Theoph.), from sin, 
Satan, and death eternal; comp. Rom. 
viii. 23, and notes oz Zph. i.14. The 
comment of Calvin is just and perti- 
nent, ‘redemptio primum Christi do- 
num est quod inchoatur in nobis, et 
ultimum perficitur.’ On this verse as 
setting forth a summary of Christian 
privileges, see Leighton, Works, Vol. 
III. p. 347 sqq- 

31. tva Kabds yéypamrar] ‘7272 order 
that, as it 7s written ;’ final purpose of 
God in thus graciously being the orig- 
inating cause of the union with Christ, 
and of the blessings that flow from it: 
‘En finis, cur omnia nobis largiatur 
Deus in Christo, nempe ut ne quid 
arrogemus nobis, sed illi omnia defera- 
mus,’ Calvin. The quotation that fol- 
lows is a free and shortened citation 
of Jer. ix. 24. & KavXopevos 
«7.X.] ‘He that glorieth let him glory 
in the Lord;’ not, in Christ (Kuply, 
Rickert), nor even with any latent 
reference to Him (Stanley), but, as the 
whole context (consider é& atrov, amd 
‘@eod) evidently requires, in God. The 
construction is unsyntactic, and prob- 
ably studiously so; the imperatival 
form being that of the original passage, 
and also more telling and forcible; 


Kayo €dOav mpos tpas, aderdoi, 
7rOov ov Kal’ wrepoynvy Aoyou % codias 


comp. ch. ii. 9, Rom. xv. 3, and see 
Winer, Gr. § 64. 7. b. Wordsworth 
notices that the same text is used by 
Clement (Z/. i. 13), as a ‘brief senten- 
tious antidote’ against the vain glory 
and worldly wisdom of this Corinthian 
Church. A short sermon on this text 
will be found in Augustine, Serm. CLX. 
Vol. vil. p. 70 (ed. Bened.). 


II. 1-5, Zhe accordance of the 
Apostle’s Preaching with the nature of 
the Gospel as above specified. 

1. Kayo] ‘And J too,’ in accordance 
with the precept, and as a true preacher 
of Christ crucified (ch. i. 23); the in- 
troductory kaf being not only connec- 
tive but emphasizing, and apparently 
here requiring in English the fuller 
translation given above; comp. Copt., 
4Eth., and see Baiimlein, Partzk. ral, 2, 
p-150sq. His coming to Corinth (ver. 
1-2), and his abode there (3-5), alike 
exemplified the accordance of his prac- 
tice with the principles he had enun- 
ciated (ch. i. 17-31); comp. Hofmann 
im loc. &8eApot] not without 
force: mdAw 7d tay adeApay TlOnow 
dvoua Katadealywy Tod Adyou Thy Tpaxv- 
tnta, Chrys. od Kad” drepoxiv 
K.T.r.] ‘ot with excellency | pre-emti- 
nence) of speech or wisdom ;’ modal 
portion of the clause qualifying, and, 
as the very position of the negative 
seems to imply, to be connected with, 
not the preceding #A@ov (Riick., Hofm.), 
but the succeeding katayyéAAwy; so 
Syr., Zerhaps Chrys., and the majority 
of recent expositors. The Apostle did 
not seek to define the manner of his 
coming, but the manner of his teaching 


Cuap II. 1, 2. 1 CORINTHIANS. 


59 


ft {PRETO \ rs an (2) Ce 2 > x ” - 
KaTayyé\Nwyv viv To waptuplov Tou Oeov* “ou yap expiva TEL 


> / > ey 3 | > A oie fa) Us \ a > / 
eldevae ev bpiv ei pt) Inoovv Xpictov, kat ToUTOV EaTaupwpEvov. 


II. 1. waptdpiov] It is hard to decide between this and the alternative reading 
pvorhpiov (Rev., Westc. and Hort). The diplomatic preponderance one way or 
other is scarcely appreciable. The scale seems turned by the less usual 
character of the expression apt. Tod Oeod (contrast ch. i. 6) and by the possi- 
bility of zverjpiov having been suggested by ch. ii. 7. 

2. &xpwa tt cidéva] So Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort: Rec. adds rod after 
éxpiva against very greatly preponderating authority (ZLachm., Tisch. also omit) 
and places rf after eidévat (so Lachm., Tisch.) with good, but still apparently not 
preponderating authority. The divided nature of the evidence makes decision 
very difficult, and the more so, as Versions are claimed in the matter of the 


order of the words, and perhaps doubtfully. 


when he did come: Adyos pointing to 
the rhetorical, copia to the philosoph- 
ical, element of the xatayyeAla (Ne- 
ander). The objection of Hofmann 
that od Kaé bmep. «.7-A. canot logically 
qualify katayy. does not seem valid; 
the «ard here points to the manner 
(comp. Phil. ii. 3, iii, 6; Winer, G7. 
§ 49, d), just as, in ch. i. 17, év pointed 
to the element of the preaching. The 
word tmepox7; (Hesych. ekoxh tmepBoan) 
is a dis Aeydu. in the N.T., here, and 
(without a dependent gen.) 1 Tim. ii. 2; 
see also 2 Macc. xiii. 6, Polyb. /zs¢. 1. 
Serv. As. 1; al. karayyevov] 
‘declaring, proclaiming ;’ present part., 
marking thus not merely that the 
KaTayyéeAA. was the purpose of the 
HaGev (fut.), but that, in effect, it com- 
menced with, and was contemporaneous 
with, the whole action of the verb; 
comp. Plato, Phed. p. 116 C, HAdey 
ayyeAAwy, and see Winer, Gr. § 45. I, 
Bernhardy, Syzz. X. I, p. 370. 

Td papt. Tod Oecod] the testimony of 
God,’ scil. ‘as to what He had vouch- 
safed to do for man’s salvation in 
Christ Jesus,’ 1 John iv. 9, al.; not 
gen. subjecti, ‘quod a Deo profectum 
est,’ Calvin, comp. 1 John v. 9,—but, 
in accordance with ch. i. 6 (comp. 
2 Tim. i. 8). gen. objecti, ‘ concerning 


Go d, thy rep) rijs oixovoutas didacKkaAlay 
Theod.; so Beza 1, DeWette, Meyer, 
al. The gloss of Theoph., al., 7d wapr. 
TovTedTe Tov Odvatov Tov Xpiorod, implies 
the same construction, though some- 
what too curtly expressed. 

2. od yap ekpiwa] ‘For J did not de- 
termine, ‘it was not my resolve; ’ con- 
firmation of what precedes by a refer- 
ence to his foregoing state of mind 
and feeling. The negative, as the order 
clearly shows, belongs to the verb, not 
to the following ti (Riickert, Osiand., 
al.). In each case the meaning is 
practically the same, but, in respect of 
mental habitus, the distinction between 
the more active state in which a reso- 
lution is formed to know no other sub- 
ject save one, and the more passive 
and absorbed state in which no resolu. 
tion is formed to know any other 
subject, seems fairly appreciable. The 
reasoning of Hofmann is artificial and 
unsatisfactory, as also his narrowing 
of the meaning of @pwa: it certainly 
does not amount to ‘eximium duxi,’ 
Calvin, comp. Grot., but may still cor- 
rectly be translated ‘statui,’ Beza; 
comp. ch, vii. 37, 2 Cor, ii, 1, Titus iii. 
12, al. The Apostle might have de- 
cided otherwise, but did not; see 
Theod, 7¢ doc, TL eiSévai] ‘Zo 


56 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. II. 2, 3. 


3 , 
3 xay@ év adobeveia Kal ev PoBw Kal ev Tpdy@ TOAAM éyevounv 


N e n 4 A, Ue , \ \ Lj / > > fA] lal 
Tpos vas, * Kal O NOYOS fou Kal TO KNpUY"a pou OUK EV TrEeLGOtS 


know anything ;’ not merely to preach, 


but even to bear in conscious knowl- 
edge. The idea of implied duty (‘that 
I ought to know’), though occasionally 
to be recognized in the use of the in- 
finitive after verbs of command, coun- 
selling, etc. (see Winer, Gr. § 44. 3, p. 
288, Lobeck, Phry2. p. 753, Bernhardy, 
Synut. p. 371), would be here out of 
place: it was a [non-] determination 
pure and simple, — todro BovAoua dep 
kal 6 Xpiords, Chrys. That ri is ‘ali- 
quid magni,’ Bretschn. Zex. (‘some- 
thing,’ Evans: comp. Gal. ii. 6), is very 
improbable ; it involves a Azatus in the 
sequence ei my «.T.A.. and mars the 
simplicity of the sentence: ovde &AAo 
Tt Acywy ev Suiv, #) bTt 6 Xpiotds eorav- 
p#0n, Chrys. kal TodTov éoravp. | 
‘and Him crucified ;’ definite specifica- 
tion of the office (Casaub.), or, rather, 
of the aspects under which the Apostle 
preached his Master, —not as the glo- 
rified One, but as the suffering One, 
"Tovdalois ev oxdvdadov COveoi dé wwplav, 
ch. i. 23. The inference that the Lord 
had not generally been so preached by 
the Apostle’s opponents (De Wette) 
seems just, — but that the Apostle had 
not as yet so preached elsewhere (Ne- 
ander, al.), eminently the reverse; the 
Apostle preached Jesus at Athens, as 
well as at Corinth; see Acts xvii. 18. 
On the force of kat, here adding the 
special and the enhancing (‘facit ad 
avténow,’ Calvin ; ‘und zwar,’ Meyer) to 
the more general and unqualified, see 
Winer, Gr. § 53. 3, and notes on Col. 
ii. 5, PAzl. iv. 12. 

3. Kayo] ‘And Z,—I1 personally, 
apart from the consideration of my 
teaching’ (ver. 4); continuation of ver. 
I after the intercalated confirmatory 
sentence forming ver. 2: ‘describit rem 
(ver. I, 2), praeeconem (ver. 3), orationem 


(ver. 4),’ Bengel. év aoGevela] 
‘in weakness, scil. ‘in consciously-felt 
weakness suggested by the mightiness 
of the work;’ ‘perpensa magnitudine 
negotii quod sustinebat, Calvin 1; comp. 
Acts xviii. 9 sq. It does not seem 
necessary to refer ao@. to any definite 
want of resolution on the part of the 
Apostle (Hofmann; compare Howson 
in Joc.), still less to physical weakness 
resulting from persecutions (7TH amd 
Tov Siwynav, Severian; comp. Chrys., 
Theod., al.): the word naturally re- 
ceives its tinge of meaning from the 
terms which follow, and marks the 
spirit in which the Apostle preached 
among his converts; mdvra juny tarei- 
vés, Severian. kal év 6éBw k.7.A.] 
‘and in fear and in much trembling, 
the woAA@ structurally referring only to 
the preceding tpéuw, but guoad sensum 
to the two (hardly to the three [Hof- 
mann]) substantives that stand before 
it. The expression éBos kal tpduos 
(2 Cor. vii. 15, Eph. vi. 5, Phil. ii. 12) 
seem always used by the Apostle to 
mark that anxious solicitude that feels 
it can never do enough; see notes oz 
Lph. lc. and on Phil. l.c., and comp. 
Ps. ii. 11, SovAedoate TH Kuplw ev pdBw, 
Kal dyardaobe adt@ ev Ttpduw. 

éyevopnv mpds tpas] ‘was with you,’ 
‘fui apud vos,’ Vulg., scil. in the state 


-above mentioned, —not, ‘came to you’ 


(comp. 2 John 12), this having been 
already specified in ver.1. On this use 
of mpés (‘apud i.g. mapdé cum dativo,’ 
Fritz.), see notes ov Gal. i. 18, and for 
examples of yiyveoOa év (‘versari in’) 
with abstract substantives (e.g. Plato, 
Legg. 1. p. 635 C, yryvduevor ev tais 
ndovais), denoting, as here, entrance 
into, and existence in, any given state, 
see note oz 1 Zim. ii. 14, Steph. Zhe- 
saur. Vol. Il. pp. 624, 625 (ed. Hase 


Cuap. II. 4. 


r CORINTHIANS. 


57 


copias Aoyos, GAN év atrodei& TIvetpatos cai Suvapews, * iva 


4. coplas] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very distinctly 
preponderating authority; ec. prefixes av@pwmivns. 


and Dind.), Ast, in Plato, Zoc. czt., and 
the references of Stallb. z7 Zoc., Vol. 
x. p. 68.! 

4. kal o Adyos pov K.T.d.] Sard (as 
an illustration of this) my speech and 
my preaching ;’ the ral being consecutive 
(comp. notes oz Phil. iv. 12), and, of 
the two substantives, the former (Adyos) 
referring not so much to ‘course of 
argument’ (Alf.) or ‘form as opposed 
to substance of preaching’ (Stanley), 
as simply to oral address generally 
(compare 2 Cor. x. 10),—the latter 
(khpuyua), to the same in its more 
special and studied form; comp. Hof- 
mann 27 Joc. tmeBois codpias Adyous] 
‘persuasive words of wisdom ;’ scil. 
words arranged with logical or rhetori- 
cal skill, and so designed to persuade ; 
the gopias being the gen. of the prin- 
cipal constituent (Bernh. Syz¢. 11. 44, 
p- 161), or perhaps, more probably, of 
the characterizing quality or attribute 
(Scheuerl. Syzzt, § 16. 3, p. 115, Kriiger, 
Sprachl. § 47. 5. 13), and the epithet 
metois marking that which the codla 
principally had in view. Hofmann seems 
to regard gopias as a gen. of the origz- 
nating cause (see notes oz 1 Thess. i. 6), 
and so more exactly parallel to the 
genitives in the following clause,— but, 
owing to the difference in the governing 
substantives, less simply and naturally 
than as above. The adjective ze.@ds 
(=mOavds) is not found elsewhere. It 
is, however, not formed without anal- 
ogy (e.g. peidds) ; and may perhaps, as 
Meyer supposes, have been in common 
oral use at the time, though as yet no 
example has been adduced of its 
written use; see Reiche zz Joc., and 
compare Steph. Zhesaur. s. v., ed. 
Hase and Dindorf. amodelEer 

8 


TIvetp. kal Suvdp.] ‘demonstration of 
the Spirit and power;’ in direct anti- 
thesis to the preceding ; not meio) Adyar, 
but dmddeztis. The genitive may be 
either (a) gen. subjectt,—‘demonstra- 
tion wrought by or emanating from 
the Spirit, etc.’ Theod., GEcum., al., or 
(2) ger. olject?,— ‘showing forth of the 
Spirit and power within,’ amddekiv Zxov 
avtd 7d Tvedua Td &yiov, Theoph., comp. 
Eth. (‘in ostendendo spiritum’), al. 
In either case the Mveduais the Holy 
Spirit, the article being omitted, either 
by the law of correlation (Middleton, 
Art. 3. 3. 6), or by its having the 
character and linguistic latitude of a 
proper name (netes o7 Gal.v.5). Of 
the two interpretations of the genitive, 
the former is distinctly to be preferred 
as most in harmony with the active 
amddeikis (a Gr. Acydu. in N.T.), with 
the general context, and especially with 
the last clause of ver. 5; comp. Acts. 
vii. 10; so clearly Origen zz doc. 
(Cramer, Cat.), and equally distinctly, 
Didymus, de Sf. Sancto, cap. 31, where 
this passage is briefly noticed. On 
these genitives, see Winer, Gr. § 30. 1, 
Schirlitz, Veutest. Griic. § 43. 2, p. 246 
sq.’ and the large collection of varied 
examples of this case in Wilke, Pez. 
§ 35, p- 137 Sq. The reference of 
Sivamis is thus not to miracles (4 
Oavparoupyia Tod Tvevuaros, Theod.; so 
also Origen, al.) but to the inward 
power vouchsafed by God (comp. ver. 
5, 2Cor.iv.7); from which the amddekis 
emanated, ‘ Dei arte subnixus,’ Didym. 
loc. cit.; see also Hofmann zz Zoc., who 
has very elaborately discussed the 
whole clause. On the preaching of St. 
Paul, as illustrated by this verse, see 
Hooker, Zcc?. Pol. 111. 8. 9, 10. 


58 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. II. 5, 6. 


a iA ig n ys ee I > 3 > 1 aes / a 
h wists bwav pr H ev copia avOpwrrwv adr’ év duvaper Ocod. 


What we preach is 
God’s wisdom, inward- 


6 Sopiav 5 Nadoduev €v Tois TEdELoLs, copiay 


ly revealed by the Spirit, and discerned only by the spiritual. 


5. Wva K.t.A.] £272 order that your faith 
might not rest in the wisdom of men, 
butin the power of God ;’ design and 
purpose, not of the Apostle (Hofm.), 
but, as the tenor of the whole passage 
seems to indicate, of God, who so 
conditioned and so foreordered the 
Apostle’s preaching; comp. ch. i. 17}; 
TovTov xdpw ork clacey mas evyAwrTig 
xphoacba 6 Acondtns Wa bua 7 lors 
avimorros galynra, ov SewdrnTt Adywv 
braxOcioa, GAA TH Suvvduer modnynGeioa 
Tod Vvetuaros, Theodoret. For exx. 
of elva % tim (‘consistere, contineri 
in’), in which the prep. marks some- 
times the ‘sphere or domain of,’ some- 
times, but more rarely, the ‘accom- 
paniments’ (see notes o” Col. ii. 7), 
sometimes, as perhaps here (comp. ch. 
iv. 20), the ‘causal foundation or 
substratum,’— the shade of meaning 
varying with the context, see Luke iv. 
32, Eph. vi. 2, 2 Thess. ii. 9, 1 Tim. iv. 
15, 1 John iv. 10, al.: comp. Bernhardy, 
Synt.v. 7, p. 210, Harrison, Gr. Prep. 
p- 246 sq. 


6-16. Zhe true wisdom, its nature 
how revealed, and for whom designed. 
The Apostle having already vindi- 
cated the simple and non-philosophical 
preaching of the Gospel (ch. i. 17-31), 
and having further illustrated the same 
by his own practice at Corinth (ch. ii. 
I-5), now goes on to show that there 
is, nevertheless, a Christian wisdom, 
far beyond the wisdom of this 
world, revealed by the Spirit and 
designed for the perfect; avamrdccouey 
obv Thy codtay Tov @cod, Origen. 
codpiav St k.t.A.] 6 Vet we speak a wis- 
dom among the perfect ;’ the 8é not 
being transitional (‘now,’ Stanley) but 
contrasting and appositive (iva wh evra 


Tis ... OUK Elxev codiay ovdeulay .. . 
emipéper kal Adyer coplay SE «.7.A. 
Origen), and the plural form including 
with the Apostle Christian teachers 
generally; contrast ch. iii. 1. There is 
some little doubt as to the exact 
meaning (a) of the preposition, and (8) 
of the term redcefois. In regard of (a) 
it seems clear that évy can only mean 
‘among,’ sc. ‘in the presence and 
hearing of’ (‘inter’ Vulg.); the use of 
év as a mere ‘nota dativi’ being dis- 
tinctly untenable (see Winer, Gr. § 31. 
8), and the ethical ref. to judgment, 
opinion, etc. (‘ que plena esse sapientiz 
judicabunt veri et probi Christiani,’ 
Grot.) being apparently confined to a 
few well-known Aroxominal forms, év 
éuol, év ool, «.7.A.; comp. Bernhardy, 
Synt. p. 211, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 68. 12. 
6. In regard of (8) it seems equally 
clear that reAclos is not neuter, and 
that it is in contrast with vnmios év 
Xpior@, ch. iii. 1; comp. Eph. iv. 13 and 
notes zz loc. It would seem to follow, 
then, that the Apostle is here referring, 
not to any special esoteric teaching 
(disciplina arcani), but simply, as the 
contrasts in ch. ili. 1 sq. distinctly sug- 
gest, to those higher subjects of 
Gospel-teaching (Tad wvorhpia tis Bact- 
Aclas tév obpav@y, Matt. xiii. 11) which 
might profitably be brought before the 
thoughts of the more advanced Chris- 
tian, but were not fitted for the newly 
converted or imperfectly instructed; 
&AAo yap eat cioayayeiv Tivas eis Thy 
miotw, &AAO THY coplay Tod Ocod amoxa- 
A’mrewv, Origen. What the 
exact substance and content of this 
teaching might have been cannot be 
safely defined. DeWette and others 
(see esp. Estius 7 doc.) apparently in- 
clude a// the Apostle’s deeper teaching 


Cuap. II. 6, 7. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


59 


88 od Tod aidvos TovTOV Ode TOY apYovTwY TOD aid@vos TovTOU 


Tov KaTapyounévov* 7 aArA Nadoduev Ocod codpiav ev mvarnpic, 


(‘que continet secretiora et altiora 
nostre religionis mysteria,’ Estius) : 
Meyer and others more naturally re- 
strict it to the principal subject-matter 
of the context, viz. God’s eternal coun- 
sels of redemption and love in Christ 
crucified (ch. i. 23), and in Christ 
glorified (ch. ii. 8, 9); comp. Eph. ili. 
t,t Pim. ii. 15, 16, 1 Pet. 1. 11, al. 
On this clause as suggesting the ex- 
cellency of the Christian religion, see 
Barrow, Oz the Creed, Serm. XVI. Vol. 
v. p. 60 sqq. copiay 8& od Tod 
alavos TrovTou] ‘a wisdom however not 
of this world ;’ the 8€ repeating with a 
contrasting explanatory force (Klotz, 
Devar. Vol. U. p. 361, Hartung, Partzk. 
Vol. 1. p. 168, Winer, Gr. § 53. 7; 4) 
the previous substantive; comp. Rom. 
iii. 22, Phil. ii. 8, and notes zz Joc. 
The wisdom which the Apostle spoke 
did not belong to the passing age or 
fleeting course of things (comp. notes 
on Eph. ii. 2), but related to what was 
enduring and eternal; it was 7 copia 
tywev Karepxouevn, James iii. 15. 

TOY apX. TOD aiaves TovTouv] ‘of ¢he 
(earthly) rulers of this world ;’ ‘prin- 
cipum hujus szculi,’ Vulg.: it was not 
the wisdom of the duvarol or the evyeveis 


(ch. I. 26), whether among the Greeks © 


or the Jews. The expression has been 
referred by some of the early commen- 
tators (Origen, al.; comp. Estius, 
Aquinas) to spiritual powers (compare 
Eph. vi. 12), by others to the philoso- 
phers and leaders of thought (coguords 
Aéyet, Theod.), but in both cases clearly 
in opposition to the gloss afforded by 
ver. 8. TOV KaTapyoupévav] ‘who 
are being brought to nought;’ the 
present here having apparently its 
simple temporal force (opp. to Meyer, 
who advocates the ethical use; comp. 
Schmalfeld, Syzz. § 54.2), and marking 


the process already referred to (ch. i. 
28), which was persistently going on. 
The kardpynots is very differently ex- 
plained. The older commentators 
refer it to the simple temporal passing 
away 
C&cum.) and éaryoxpédvots apx7 of the ru- 
lers; many of the later to definite epochs, 
such as the destruction of Jerusalem 
(Rosenm.), or the future coming of 
Christ (Meyer). The most natural 
reference seems that suggested by ch. 
i. 28, viz. to that gradual nullification 
of all real and enduring potency on 
their part which was brought about by 
the Gospel; see Hofm. and especially 
Neander 27 Joc. 

7. GAG Aadotpev] ‘but we speak ;’ 
the aaa having its full adversative 
force (‘aliud jam hoc esse de quo 
dicturi sumus,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. 
p- 2), and the AaAoduey by its very 
iteration adding weight and emphasis 
to the declaration; comp. Rom. viii. 
15, Phil. iv. 17. Ocod codiay] 
‘ God’s wisdom ;’ with full emphasis on 
the genitive, as the collocation indi- 
cates;see Winer, Gr. § 30. 3.4. The 
gen. seems here simply possessive ; the 
wisdom which God has and which He 
vouchsafed to reveal to His servants; 
comp. ver. 10. év puoryplo] 
‘in a mystery, sc. in the substance and 
under a form of teaching hidden to 
man but revealed to us His Apostles 
and preachers ; the prep. here marking, 
not so much the means employed 
(comp. Meyer, and notes oz 1 Thess. 
iv. 18), as the ideal substance in which, 
as it were, the Aadecivy was embodied, 
and so, indirectly, the form and manner 
in which it took place (comp. ch. xiii. 
12, and see notes oz Philem. 6),—and 
the subst. retaining its usual meaning 
in St. Paul’s Epp., of something ‘not 


/ ~ sf 
(cuumavovta: Te TapdvT: Big, 


60 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap, 11. 7, 8. 


THY ATOKEKPULMEVHY, Hv Tpowpicev 0 Oeos TPO TOV aidvey eis 


Py 4 ¢€ [al 8a a) \ fa) b) ' fa) an / ” 
ofav nav: ® hp ovdeis TOY APXOVTWY TOD alaVOS TOUTOU EyVwKEV, 


el yap éyvacay, ov« dv Tov Kipuoyv tis dofns éotavpwoav: * adda 


7. @c0d aoplay] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on vastly 
preponderating authority; Rec., copiay Oeov. 


comprehensible by unassisted human 
reason ;’ see notes oz Zph. v. 32. The 
connection of év pwvor. with thy aroKexp. 
(Theod.) is out of harmony with the 
order of the words and the position of 
the article; the connection with coplay 
(Meyer, al.), though grammatically 
permissible (compare Winer, Gr. § 20. 
2), is inconsistent with ordinary pers- 
picuity ; comp. Hofmann 77z Joc. 

Tiv &roKxexpuppévyv] ‘the hidden (wis- 
dom) ;’ ‘the wisdom that lies in con- 
cealment,’ Martensen (Chr. * Ethics, 
Part I1.§ 71); not simply in reference 
to the present (BAémouey yap upte ev 
écémTpw, Theoph. ; Gicum.), nor simply 
in ref. to the past (Grot.), but, as the 
tense, the defining relative clause, and 
general context (comp. ver. 9, 10), all 
clearly suggest, alike to the past (comp. 
Rom. xvi. 25, Eph. iii. 9) and to the 
present; ‘est occulta antequam expro- 
mitur; et quum expromitur tamen 
occulta manet multis, imperfectis,’ 
Bengel. On the mysterious character of 
Christianity, see South, Servm. Vol. 1. 
p- 489 sqq. iV mpodpicev K.T.A. ] 
‘which (wisdom) God foreordained before 
the ages unto our glory ;’ relative clause 
defining more fully the foregoing 
participle, and specifying the involved 
issues; the gopfa was to prove and 
issue forth in our S5éf. Hofmann 
seems right in saying that the els détav 
does not mark the definite purpose of 
the mpoopiozés (comp. Alf.), as in such 
a case we must have had some other 
object-accus. (‘einen Willensbegriff 
wie Bovajy, Akt. ii. 23, nicht aber einen 
Wissenbegriff’), but rather that which 


the godia was to introduce and to 
result in. The doctrinal comment of 
Theodoret is very suggestive ; od udvnv 
cwrnplay. GAAG Kat Sdtav Xopnyet Tots 
LOT EVOUCLY. 

8. iv odSels K.T.A.] ‘which (wisdom) 
no one of the rulers of this world know- 
eth ;’ parallel to the preceding relative 
clause, and obviously referring to the 
same subject, copfav. The reference to 
dotav (Tertull, AZarc. v. 6), alluded to, 
but not adopted by Est., is wholly out 
of harmony with the context; it was 
not an ignorance of the ddta of the 
Christian, but of the gogia of God, 
that led the &pxovtes to act as they did 
act; Tovrous Aéye: Td Oeiov jryvonkevat 
pvorhpiov, Theod. et yap K.T.d.] 
‘for if they had known it ;’ parenthet- 
ical confirmation by the appeal to com- 
mon experience; ‘non credibile est eos 
cruci addicturos fuisse (aut instigatione 
sua ut Sacerdotes, aut decreto ut Pila- 
tus, aut consensu ut Herodes) eum 
quem Deus esse vult omnium judicem,’ 
Grot. The crucifiers of the Lord are 
here viewed under the corporate term 
&pxovtes TOV ai@vos TovTov: Jews con- 
demned the Lord to death (Matt. xxvi. 
66); Romans confirmed the condemna- 
tion, and drove in the nails; comp. 
Acts ii. 36, iv. Io. tov Kiupuov 
Tis S6Eys] ‘the Lord of glory,’ scil. the 
Lord whose essential attribute is glory; 
the genitival relation not being that of 
possession, in the sense of Christ being 
‘princeps, auctor, et consummator glo- 
rificationis suorum,’ Est., — but simply 
that of the characterizing quality ; see 
notes oz 2 Thess. ii. 7, and compare, 


Cuap. II. 8, 9. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


61 


Kabas yéyparta, “A opOarpos ov eidev Kal ods ovK HKovoEv 


\ > A rd > , > > / va ¢e / € \ 
Kai emt Kapdiav avOpwrov ovx avéBn, dca nToiwacev 0 Oeos 


g. daa] So Lachm., Treg., Rev. Westc. and Hort, on apparently prepon- 
derating authority: Rec., Zisch., &. The authorities are very evenly balanced, 
but the scale seems turned by the greater probability of the change of dca 


into the relative than the reverse. 


as to the expression, Acts vii. 2, Eph. 
i.17, Heb. ix. 5, James ii. 1, and, as to 
the spiritual truth, Luke ix. 26, John i. 
14, Xvii. 5, Phil. iii. 21,al. In examples 
of this form of genitive there may 
commonly be discerned some trace of 
a rhetorical or semi-poetical force. In 
earlier Greek this is more clearly 
marked (comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 402. c, 
Scheuerl. Syzz. § 16.3); in the later wri- 
ters, where there is an obvious tendency 
to rhetorical form without a specially 
intended increase of meaning (comp. 
notes oz Phil. iii. 11), and in the N. T., 
where the parallel Hebrew usage had 
obviously much influence, the rhetorical 
emphasis is less distinctly to be traced ; 
see the numerous examples in Wilke, 
Rhetorik, § 35, p.137- Here, however, 
the expression is designedly chosen, 
and in studied antithesis to the mention 
of the crucifixion; ddotia édéce: 6 orav- 
pés, Theoph. Had the &pxovres known 
the wisdom of God they would not 
have acted in reference to our Lord 
kat’ ®yvoay (Acts iii. 17) as they did 
act, but instead of crucifying would 
have acknowledged and honored Him ; 
see above. 

Q. GANA Kabds yéyparrar] ‘ ut as it 
hath been written ;’ adversative clause 
corresponding to the fy ovdels «.7.A., 
the @aad, with its normal usage (ob«h— 
GAAd), introducing the antithesis to the 
involved ov.» The quotation here in- 
troduced by the formal ra6dis yéypamrat 
cannot very readily be verified. Origen 
(x Matt. p. 916 B, ed. Delarue) and 
others deem the passage a citation 
from the ‘Apocalypsis Eliz’ (comp. 


Coteler, Cozst Apost. vi. 16); Theod- 
oret, Chrys. 2, al., more plausibly, a 
citation from some lost prophetical 
writing. It seems, however, more 
natural and more consistent with the 
Apostle’s established use of the formal 
Kadas yeyp. (thus far rightly, Theodoret, 
apkel 7 makapla yA@TTa, phoaca, kabws 
vy éyp.) to regard the words as a free 
citation of a passage in a canonical book 
(Isa. lxiv. 4), with which it is quite 
possible memory might have com- 
bined other and similar passages (Isa. 
lii. 15, Ixv. 17); so Jerome, Zfzst. (ad 
Pammach.) tot, and following him 
the majority of recent expositors; comp. 
Surenhus. Kataaa. p. 527, Riggenbach, 
Stud. u. Krit. 1855, p. 596. The way 
in which Clem. Rom. (ad Cor. i. 34) 
reproduces the passage (icq éroiwacey 
Tos UTOMEevOUVGLY avTdy, as in Isa. lxiv. 
4), seems fairly to disclose Clement’s 
opinion of the source of the quotation. 
To regard the passage as really from 
an apocryphal book, but quoted by 
failure of memory as from a canonical 
book (Meyer, Weiss, 2z0/. Theol. § 74. 
4, note, Vol. 1. p. 383, Transl.), must be 
pronounced, on the evidence before us, 
as by no means demonstrable. 

& dpOarpds «.7.A.] ‘things which eye 
saw not, and ear heard not, and which 
entered not into the heart of man, (even) 
as many things as God hath prepared 
jor them that love him ;’ loosely de- 
pendent on the preceding Aadodyer, 
and added to define more fully the 
substance of the cogiav. So rightly, 
Meyer, in his last ed.; the connection 
with the first clause of ver. 10 (revived 


62 


Tols ayaT@ow avrov. 


fal \ m, nn n 
ITvetpatos, 70 yap Iveta ravra épavva, Kai ta 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. II. 9, 10. 


10 juiv dé amexadruev 6 Oeds bia Tod 


\ \ 


Ba0n Tod 


10. a&mexddvpev 5 Ocds] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev., Weste. and Hort, on 
very greatly preponderating authority: ec., 6 @cds dmexdavile. 
Tod mvebuatos] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev. Westc. and Hort, on very 


clearly preponderating authority: Rec. adds airod. 


The same uncial 


authorities as in the last-mentioned case read the Alexandrian form épavv@ in 


place of the more usual épeurg. 


by Hofmann), though grammatically 
defensible (on such use of 5€ in an 
apodosis, see Klotz, Devar. Vol. I. p. 
374 sq-), being deficient in simplicity 
and perspicuity, and tending, as De- 
Wette has rightly observed, to suggest 
a contrast (which could not have been 
in the Apostle’s thoughts) between the 
jeev and the preceding rots dyaraow 
autor. On the meaning of kapdla, 
which is here used, with some latitude, 
to indicate the seat of thinking and 
understanding, as well as of feeling, 
see the excellent article of Cremer, 
Worterb. s.v. p. 347 sq. Delitzsch, 
Bibl. Psychol. iv. 11, p. 203 sq., Weiss, 
Bibl. Theol. § 68. d. note, Vol. I. p. 349 
(Transl.), and notes oz Phzl. iv. 8, and 
on i Tim.i. 5. The form avéBn ém 
kapdiay is obviously only the grecized 
ad by m3: comp. Jer. iii. 16, Acts vii. 
23. Tois dyaTrecw aitév] The 
Tois Umouevovow €Acov of the LXX and 
of the O.T. here suitably and perti- 
nently passes into the evangelical rots 
ayar@ow avtdy of the N. T.: ofdauev dru 
Tos ayamaow Thy @cby TavtTa cuvepyet 
eis @ya0dv, Rom. viii. 28. As Aquinas 
well observes, ‘essentiale premium 
zeternze gloriz charitati debetur; ’ 
comp. John xiv. 21. 

10. piv 8€] ‘ But to us,’ —teachers 
and preachers of the Gospel; the d¢ 
putting the jets in general and re- 
capitulatory contrast with those in- 
cluded in the first clause of ver. 8. 
The negation in the first part of ver. 8 
thus stands in antithesis to 5€ as well 


as to @AAd (ver. 9). The distinction, 
however, between the cases is clear. 
The @AdAd introduces the special and 
immediate adversative relation; the dé 
places before the reader the more gen- 
eral contrast; see above, notes on ch. 
i. I0, where the distinction between 
the common ovx—aAdAd, and the less 
usual ob (uy) followed by 6€ is briefly 
investigated. Westc. and Hort. read 
yép; but on insufficient authority, and 
in the face of the apparently greater 
probability of the 5é here being changed 
into yap than the reverse. 7d 
yap IIvetpa x.t.d.] ‘for the Spirit 
searches all things ;’ scil. the personal 
Holy Spirit; comp. ver. 11, 12. The 
present clause confirms more imme- 
diately the latter part of the preceding 
verse; the amoxdAviis verily so comes 
to us (8a Tod TMyv.), for the Holy Spirit 
investigates, accurately searches into, 
all things. The verb épavygy (probably ' 
connected with ép@), though not neces- 
sarily and Zer se indicating more than 
‘tracking out’ (?yv1a, Homer, //. XVIII. 
321, Odyss. XIX. 436), ‘search’ (Hesych. 
épeuvay- (nretv comp. Schleusn. Lex. 
s.v.) appears always used in the N. T. of 
active, accurate, and carefulsearch; ak- 
piBods yvdoews évtaiOa Td epevvdy evderk- 
tixdv, Chrys., comp. Theod., Severian, 
al.; see John v. 39, vii. 52, Rom. viii. 
27, 1 Pet. i. 13, Rev. ii. 23, and comp. 
Suicer, 7hesaurv. s.v. Vol. I. p. 1211 sq., 
and the examples in Steph. 7hesaur. 
s.v. Vol. Il. p. 2005, especially Anti- 
phon, p. 133. I. Kal ta Bd0n 


CHxPOT. 10, 11. 


Ocov. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


63 


11 / \ io > 0 , + x lal he 0 , > \ X 
TLS Yap OlOEY AVUPWTT@V TA TOV AVUPWTOU EL (1) TO 


la) a > / “ > > lel ee \ x a A 
TVEULQ TOU avOpetrov TO €V GUT@M; OUTWS KAL TA TOU Ocod 


Tov Ocod] ‘even the deep things of God,’ 
‘profunda Dei,’ Vulg.; not only the 
eternal counsels of God, but all the 
blessed mysteries of his essence and 
attributes,—‘ etiam nature divine, non 
modo regni ejus,’ Bengel; comp. Rom. 
xi. 33, and contrast Ta Badéa Tod Sarava, 
Rev. ii. 24. This clause is one of car- 
dinal importance in reference to the 
Scripture doctrine of the Holy Ghost. 
As Severian (Cramer, Catez.) rightly 
says, 6” dAov Tov xwptov [the passage 
before us] 7d Tvedua 7d Gyo SelxvuTa. 
To dilute this plain reference to the 
personal Holy Spirit into a mere refer- 
ence to the self-consciousness of God 
(Weiss, 8767. Theol. § 84. 6, Vol. 1. p. 
456 note [Transl.]), is to traverse other 
and similar texts (Gal. iv. 6, Rom. viii. 
Q, II, 26, 34), which cannot, with com- 
mon fairness, be explained away, — 
to confuse in what follows the recog- 
nized principles of St. Paul’s psychol- 
ogy in regard of the human mvedua 
(see notes oz 1 Thess. v. 23),—and 
to mar the whole illustrative reasoning 
of the passage. The mvedua in ver. 
II is not the human self-consciousness, 
but the third and highest part of our 
composite nature, and so a kind of 
feeble similitude of the Third Person 
of the blessed immanent Trinity. On 
this vital passage, see Dorner, Chr. 
Doctr. § 28, Vol. 1. p. 359 sq. (Transl.), 
and on the profound question of the 
relation of the Third to the First and 
Second Persons, Dorner, 7d. § 31. 0, p. 
425, and comp. Martensen, Chr. Dogm. 
§§ 56, 181. 

11. tls yap K.7.A.] ‘ For who of men 
knoweth the things of a man,’ or, more 
exactly, the man, scil. the man specified 
by the ris: amplification, and confirm- 
atory explanation, of the latter part 
of the preceding verse; ta@v avOpémwv 


being emphatic and in studied juxta- 
position to T& Tod avOpémov: ‘notat 
similitudinem nature,’ Bengel. It is 
from the analogy of man’s nature and 
man’s self-knowledge that the Apostle 
illustrates, almost @ fortior7, the truth 
in the conclusion of ver. to. As the 
spirit of a man alone knows the things 
of the man in question (generaliter 
dictum, —not merely T& BdOy Tod dv- 
Opémrov), even though man is the like 
of his fellow-men, so verily is it the 
Holy Spirit that searches the depths 
of God,—and He alone; comp. Hof- 
mann zz J/oc., who, though here rather 
diffusely argumentative, appears to 
have caught rightly the general current 
of the passage. 

Swhich is tn him; 


To év atta] 
closer specification 
of the mvevua, giving also indirectly a 
proof of the assertion; ‘criterium veri, 
natura conscia,’ Bengel: it is because 
it is in him that it knows as it does 
know. It is not the ~uxf of man, but 
the mvevua that is in him, the third and 
highest part of his composite nature 
(7d cuuTAnpwpaTiKdy Tod BAov avOperov, 
Severian), that is the true self-knowing 
subject: see Delitzsch, Bzb/. Psychol. 
p- 155, and on the general distinction, 
the comments in the present writer’s 
Destiny of Creature, Serm. V., and notes 
on Phil. i. 27 and ont Thess.v. 23. 
tyvoxev] ‘kxoweth,’ ‘cognovit,’ Vulg., 
or, possibly here more exactly, cometh 
to know, ‘cognita habet,’ De Wette. 
It is not easy, either here or in other 
passages of the N. T. (comp. John xxi. 
17) to draw the exact distinction be- 
tween ofda and éyvwxa. Without over- 
pressing, or limiting the reference of 
the former to the senses, and the latter 
to the mind (comp. Stanley 2 Zoc.), it 
seems correct to say that ofa is the 
more inclusive term, and points to 


’ 


64 


ovoels éyvaxev ef py TO IIvedua tod Ocod. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cnap. II. 11, 12. 


12 Hues b€ ov TO 


TVEv LA TOV KOToU EAaBouev, GAAaA TO IIvedua TO Ex TOD Ocod 
i >) ’ 


iva ciSdpev Ta tO TOD Ocod yapicOévta Huiv: *% & Kai Nadod- 


11. &yvwxev] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly 


preponderating authority: 7ec. older. 


knowledge generally, however arrived 
at, éyywka to knowledge as acquired 
and arrived at by the reference of the 
subject to some object which supplies 
it (emiorhunv mov AaGew, Plato, Theet. 
p. 209 E): see Cremer, L7d/.-Theol. 
Weorterb. s.v. oi8a, p. 230. otTws 
Kal ta Tod Ocod «.t.A.] ‘50 also the 
things of God knoweth no one save the 
Spirit of God ;’ completion of the pro- 
found statement, and application of 
the suggestive, but imperfect human 
analogue. This verse is used by Bp. 
Sanderson, in his treatise de Obligatione 
Conscientig@, as his text to Praelect. I. 
12. hpets 8 xt. ] Application of 
the general statement to the particular 
case, and further elucidation of the 
nature and the reality of the éroxdaAufis 
(ver. 10); the jets corresponding to 
the juiv above, and the two opposed 
members illustrating and expanding 
the 8:4 trod Mveduaros: ‘amplificat a 
comparatione contrariorum certitudi- 
nem illam cujus, meminerat,’ Calvin. 
Td tTrvetpa Tod Kécpor] ‘the spirit of the 
world, scil. its present animating and 
directive principle. There is some little 
difficulty in settling the exact meaning 
of this expression. On the one hand, 
to make it simply equivalent (a) to 
‘sapientia mundana et szcularis’ 
(Estius ; comp. Theoph., DeWette, al.) 
is to mar the balance of the antithesis, 
which certainly seems to imply some- 
thing more substantive and objective. 
On the other hand to make it equiv- 
alent (4) to the ‘spirit of the Devil’ 
(Meyer ; comp. 2 Cor. iv. 4, Eph. vi. 11, 
12, John xii. 31, al.) is to bring out 


more fully the moral element than the 
context seems to suggest ; see Hofmann 
in loc. It seems best, then, to take 
the words in the more general sense 
above specified: comp. Eph. ii. 2; and, 
on the meaning of the word kécpos, 
consider the thoughtful remarks of 
Martensen, Chr. Dogm. § 96, 97; 
comp. notes oz Gail. iv. 3. Td 
éx TOD Oeod] ‘which is from God ;’ not 
merely ‘Spiritum Dei,’ Clarom., but 
‘qui ex Deo est,’ Vulg.,—and is 
directly vouchsafed to us from Him 
(‘antitheton év, ver. 11,’ Bengel): adrd 
7d é€x Tov Tlarpbs exmopevducvoy Mvedua 
edldatey judas, Theod. Being so, our 
knowledge will indeed be sure and 
complete; ‘Spiritus est a Deo, ac 
proinde supra omnem dubitationis 
aleam positus,’ Calvin. tva 
elSapev k.7.A.] ‘that we might know the 
things which have been freely given to 
us by God;’ divine purpose in the 
vouchsafed reception of the Spirit, the 
imd Tod cov echoing, as it were, the é« 
tov @e0d; God’s Spirit has enabled us 
to know and realize God’s gifts. These 
gifts are not merely ‘beneficia quz ex 
ejus [Christi] morte et resurrectione 
consequimur’ (Calvin— who seems to 
read Xpiorod, though without any 
grounds), but, generally and compre- 
hensively, the blessings of the Gospel 
dispensation (T& Kata Thy oikovoulav 
yeyoveta Tod Xpiotod, CEcum.), whether 
present (comp. Eph. i. 14) or future. 
The ra imd tod Ocod xapiobevra are in 
effect the same as & 7Toluacev 6 Oeds 
(ver. 9), though perhaps including a 
little more of present reference; comp. 


Cuap. II. 12, 13. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


65 


ev ovk ev Sidaxtois avOpwrivyns codias Aoyois, GAN’ ev SidaKTols 


TIvevpatos, mvevpartixois Tvevpatica ovvKpivovTes. 


14 buytKos 


13. Mveduaros] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very 
greatly preponderating authority: Rec. adds ayiov. 


Estius and Hofmann zz Joc. The 
polemical applications of the passage. 
(de fidelium hzesitatione) will be found 
in Calvin and Estius. In reference 
to these, itis only necessary to remark 
that the meaning ‘cero scire’ Calvin.), 
‘certo noscere’ (Grot.), is not necessa- 
rily or logically involved in the verb 
eidévaz. The degree of such knowledge 
will always be modified by the degree 
of faith. 

13. Akal Aadotpev] ‘which also we 
speak ;’ the manner in which God 
made the revelation (ver. 10) being 
now set forth and elucidated, the 
Apostle passes to the manner in which 
the substance of the revelation was 
orally delivered; ‘not only do we thus 
mercifully acquire the knowledge of 
7a brd Tov Ocod x.7.A.. but we also 
speak them to you and to others;’ 
the «af slightly accentuating the 
AaAoduev, and implying the accordance 
of the act with the previously specified 
revelation, ver, 1osq. On this common, 
but delicately expressive use of kal, 
see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 635. 
avOperivys codias] ‘human wisdom ;’ 
gen. dependent on the verbal d:danrds 
(comp. John vi. 45, Isaiah liv. 13, 1 
Macc. iv. 7, and see Winer, Gr. § 30. 
4), and defining the agency by which 
the teaching was not, and was, imparted. 
To make the genitive dependent on 
Adyors is obviously negatived by the 
second member of the sentence; and 
to give the verbal d:daxrés its,prevalent 
classical meaning ‘qui doceri potest’ 
(Plato, Protag. p. 328 Cc, Xenoph. Zon. 
Cap, 12. 10) is out of harmony with the 
general context. The Apostle is not 
speaking of what cou/d be taught, but 


9 


what was taught. On the nature of 
the genitival relation in cases such as 
the present, and its essentially synthetic 
character, see the excellent comments 
of Rumpel, Casuslehre, pp. 237, 242 
sq. The reading &:dax7 preferred by 
Bengel, rests on no critical authority 
worthy of consideration. aTrveEv- 
Patukots mvevpatiua  cvvKplvovtes] 
‘combining spiritual things with spir- 
tual ;’ participial clause defining the 
associated acts and circumstances; 
comp. I Thess. ili. 10, and notes 27 doc. 
In cases like the present, which are by 
no means uncommon in the N.T., the 
use of the participle is not so much 
modal as supplemental; it serves to 
define the action more clearly by 
specifying in the form of a secondary 
predication (Donalds. Gr. § 442 sq.) 
the accompaniments or associated 
circumstances; comp. Winer, Gr. § 
45. 2, Kiihner, Gr. § 486. 6, Kriiger, 
Sprachl. § 56. 9.1 sq.; and for a list 
of the various uses of the participle, 
see Bernhardy, Syzt. xiv. 13, p- 475, 
Schmalfeld, Syzz. § 207, and especially 
the elaborate synopsis of Kiihner Gr. 
§ 480, prefixed to his full and thorough 
discussions of this most characteristic 
element of the Greek sentence. The 
exact meaning of the clause is some- 
what doubtful, as (1) mvevpatiots may 
be masc. (Est., Bengel, Riick., al.,) or 
neuter, and (2) ovykpivew admits 
several varieties of interpretation. As 
regards /1) the decision is not difficult 
(notwithstanding the able comments of 
Hofmann zz /oc.), as not only the prom- 
inent position of mvevuaricois and its 
apparently studied juxtaposition to the 
preceding S:5acrois Mvedparos, but also 


66 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. II. 13, 14. 


5¢ avOpwrros od Séyetar Ta Tod IIvetpatos Tod Ocod, wwpia yap 


the clear reference of the context to 
the things taught (& kal Aadovduer) 
rather than to the persons taught (this 
idea comes in afterwards) seem very 
decidedly in favor of the neuter: so 
DeWette, Meyer, Ewald, and the 
majority of the best commentators 
ancient and modern. In_ regard, 
however, of (2) the difficulty of de- 
cision is very great, there being at 
least three meanings which may plaus- 
ibly be assigned to ovyxpivey, viz. 
(a) to combine (opp. to diakp.; comp. 
Plato, Zim. Locr. p. 101 C, Td AevKdv 
diaxpiver thy dw, Td Se weAay ovykplve ; 
comp. Valck. Scho/. Vol. I) 135), as 
Calvin, Beza, DeWette, Meyer, pie 
(4) to compare (‘comparare,’ Vulg., Syr., 
Arm.), as in 2 Cor. x. 12, and very fre- 
quently later writers, e.g. Polyb. Ast. 
vl. 47. 9 (cuvéxpwe Kal Sinpetva Ta 
Aeydueva), XII. 10. 1, al., Diod. Sic. 
Bibl. Hist. wv. 14, al.; comp. Lobeck., 
Phryn. p. 278,—and thence deriva- 
tively, (c) to explain or interpret (sc. 
‘comparando explicare,’ Valck.), as 
apparently in the LXX, e.g. Gen. xl. 8 
(Aq. émaAvew), 16, 22, Dan. v. 12, al.: 
so Chrys. (amb Trav mvevmariKay Tas 
paprupias &yew), -Theod.-Mops. (amodeur- 
viva), and most of the ancient expos- 
itors. Of these (c) is lexically doubtful, 
as the idea of ‘interpretation’ rather 
comes from the context (évimmov ovy- 
xplveww) than from the essential meaning 
of the word (opp. to Hofmann), which 
apparently does not go beyond the 
idea of ‘judging of ’ or ‘estimating ;’ 
see Palm. u. Rost, Zex. s. v., and Meyer 
in loc. Itis also contextually unsatis- 
factory, as the verse seems clearly to 
refer, not to any comparison or eluci- 
dation by comparison of spiritual things 
with each other, but to the form (oik 
év diSaxrois x.7.A.) in which they were 
conveyed. As the last objection ap- 


plies with equal force to (4) we seem 
justified in deciding in favor of (qa), 
which is not only lexically certain, but 
also fully in harmony with the context, 
—the meaning being that the Apostle 
clothed his Spirit-revealed truths in 
Spirit-taught language, and thus com- 
bined what was spiritual in substance 
with what was spiritual in form: for 
further details see De Wette and Meyer 
in loc., and Kling, Stud. u. Krit. for 
1839, P- 437- 

14. uxucds 8¢ &vOpwrros] ‘Vow a 
natural man,’ or, in our idiom, ‘ ¢he 
natural man,’ ‘animalis homo,’ Vulg., 
scil. one in whom the wWux7f is the pre- 
dominating element, 6 xaTa ocdpxa (av 
kal uymw Toy voov pwricGels 51a Tov TMvev- 
patos, Cyril (Cramer, Ca¢ez.): transi- 
tion from the form and substance of 
the message to the hearers and re- 
ceivers of it, the dé here being slightly 
wetaBatixndy (Hartung, Partik. Vol. I. 
p- 165), and serving to prepare the way 
for the contrast which immediately 
follows, and the Apostle’s own diffi- 
culties in connection with it, ch. iii. 1 
sq. The pvxeeds (contrasted generally 
with the receivers of the Spirit, ver. 12, 
and directly with the mvevuarids, ver. 
15) here specified, is the man whose 
soul, with its merely human longings 
and affections (‘vis inferior quz agitur, 
movetur, in imperio tenetur,’ Olsh. 
Opusc. p. 154), unhallowed and unil- 
lumined, and, so to speak, despiritu- 
alized (comp. Jude 19, WuxiKot, mvedua 
wh €xovres), is to him the all in all, — 
‘man devoted in his thoughts and 
strivings to the phenomenal world [in 
effect, capxicds, ch. iii. 1], and lost in 
it,’ Miiller, Chr. Doctr. of Sin, Vol. 11. 
p- 298 (Transl.); see also Delitzsch, 
Bibl. Psychol. p. 398 sq. (Transl.), Beck, 
Seelenl. 1. 8.p. 17 sq. The puxixés has 
practically no mvedua; it indeed latently 


Cuap. II. 14, 15. 


t CORINTHIANS. 


67 


avT@ éotw, Kal ov StvaTat yvovat, OTL TVEVpATLKaS avaKpiveTaL. 


15 c St ‘\ > tZ A > \ de e ’ a) \ ’ 
1) be TTVEULATLKOS AVAKPLVEL TAVTA, AUTOS OE UT OVOEVOS ava- 


15. avaxpiver mavra] The reading here presents some difficulties. 


After ava- 


kpiver Rec., [Treg.], Rev., Westc. and Hort, add pwév: Lachm., Tisch., omit on 
apparently preponderating authority. The insertion of ra before ravru [Lachm.] 
is well supported (hence Westc. and Hort place it as a bracketed alternative 
reading to pév), but the omission (Rec., Zisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort) 


rests on preponderating authority. 


exists, and, it may be, after death will 
make itself fearfully recognized, but 
having lost all its blessed and quick- 
ening communication with 7d Tvedua 
7 ayy, it is as though it were not; 
see Heard, 7ripartite Nature of Man, 
p. 81 sq. On the whole subject see 
notes and reff. oz 1 Thess. v. 23, and 
Destiny of Creature, Serm. V. p. 99 
sq. ov Séxerar] ‘vecezveth not,’ 
scil. ‘non vultadmittere,’ Bengel. The 
meaning ‘non percipit’ (Vulg., Clarom. ; 
comp. Grotius, Calvin, al.) is lexically 
admissible, but not in accordance with 
the prevailing use of the word in the 
N.T. in reference to teaching, etc.; see 
Luke viii. 13, Acts viii. 14, xi. I, al., 
1 Thess. i. 6, ii. 13, James i. 21, where 
d¢xeoOa refers, not to the understand- 
ing, but to the reception in the heart; 
so rightly Syr., Copt., ith. Arm. 
(Theod. d:dackaArtay wh mpooteuevoy), and 
the majority of modern commentators. 
On the appropriation of Christianity, 
see Martensen, Chr. £thics, Part 1. 
§ 92. popla yap KT.A.] * for 
they are foolishness unto him, not 
merely ‘seem to be’ (De Wette), but, 
as in ch. i. 18, actually are, the negative 
clause that follows (comp. Luke 1. 20) 
substantially repeating the same idea: 
the object is foolishness to the subject 
(‘quasi stultorum voces nihil significan- 
tes,’ Grot.), and (not ‘neither can he,’ 
Auth., which would imply od5é, comp. 
Rom. viii. 7) the subject cannot under- 
stand the nature of the object; see 
Hofmann 77 /oc. Stu mvevparuKas 


avakplverat] ‘because they are spiritu- 
ally judged of ;’ and only so, —‘non- 
nisi spiritualiter,’ Bengel. The adverb, 
as Meyer rightly remarks, refers not to 
the man’s spirit, but to the Holy Spirit 
(comp. ver. 13), which enlightens the 
human spirit, and gives the needed 
power of discernment; 6 tis Tod Tlvev- 
patos xdpitos Hkwuévos, altos mev ikavds 
érépous diSdkat, Tis 5¢ éErépwy Sidackaadlas 
ovx evdens, Theod. The verb avaxpivew 
is only used by St. Paul in this Epistle: 
it occurs in its forensic sense Luke 
xxii. “FS, Acts ivo 0) ail 19, xxiv. 9, 
xxviii. 18, and once, Acts xvii. 11, as 
here, in the general sense of ‘ proving,’ 
‘coming to a judgment on:’ dvaxpivdue- 
vos: ékera(duevos, Hesychius ; avaxpivew 
kat eAeyxew eotiv, Chrys. 77 loc. 

15. 6 8 mvevparicds] ‘But the spir- 
ztual man,’ whether hearer or other- 
wise: ‘pulchre additur hic articulus; 
uxinds sine articulo,’ Bengel. The 
mvevuatikds (opp. to the Wuxucds, comp. 
ver. 14) is the man whose human mvedua, 
is illuminated by the Holy Spirit, and in 
whom it is the predominant influence ; 
see above on ver. 14. The existence 
of the mvedua as distinct from the wuxh 
is denied by Hofmann, zz doc. and 
Schriftbeweis, Vol. 1. 294, Rothe, Dag- 
matik, Part I. § 62, and by a few recent 
writers ; but without sufficient grounds. 
It may be admitted that man’s nature 
is often referred to in Scripture xara 
dixotoulay, viz. as composed of a ma- 
terial and an immaterial part, but it is 
always equally true that this immaterial 


68 


KpiVETat. 


¢ al \ lel an 
nets dé voov Xpiotov Exopev. 


part is regarded, especially in the N.T., 
as composed of two elements, soul and 
spirit, which are not merely nominally, 
but actually and essentially, distinct: 
see the short but careful treatise in 
Olsh. Ofuscula, pp. 143-163, Schubert, 
Gesch. der Seele, Vol. 1. pp. 495-516, 
Plitt, Evang. Glaubensl. Vol. 1. pp. 212- 
210. mavra] ‘all things, whether 
personal or impersonal, spiritual or 
natural: ‘the divinely illuminated man 
has the appropriate standard for every- 
thing,’ Neander. Whatsoever things 
fall within the scope-of the judgment 
are judged of by the mvevyarinds, the 
illumination of the Holy Ghost supply- 
ing him with the necessary power. 
No better illustration of the truth of 
this can be supplied than that which is 
furnished by the Apostle himself 
(Meyer), and by the marvellous force 
and clearness of his own judgments on 
the various matters (as for example in 
this very Epistle) that came before 
him,—lawsuits of Christians, ch. vi. 
I-4; marriage and its various aspects, 
ch. vii. 1 sq.; slavery, ch. vii. 20 sq., 
woman’s position, ch. xi. 3 sq., Xiv. 
34 sq.; speaking with tongues, ch. 
xiv. 6 sq. In all these things we 
see the wide scope of the dvdxpiors. 
According to Aristotle (Zthzc, 3. 4) it 
is the orovdaios who Exacta Kplvet 6p0ds ; 
but how is the omovéatos to be defined? 
comp. Est. 27 loc. avros St K.7.A.] 
‘but he himself is judged of by no one,’ 
scil. who is not mvevpatinéds (comp. ch. 
xiv. 29), this limitation being really 
involved in the first and affirmative 
clause of the verse. The stand-point 
of the spiritual man is too high for any- 
one not similarly placed to pass a 
judgment upon him; comp. 1 John iv. 
I, where a power of testing and judging 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


[Cuap. II. 15, 16. 


ris yap éyvw voov Kupiov, 0s cupBiBace avrov ; 


is assumed on the part of those ad- 
dressed, and rules given for rightly 
exercising it. 

16. tls yap «.t.A.] ‘Hor who hath 
known,’ or,—to preserve the aoristic 
form,— ‘who ever knew ;’ confirmation 
(ydp) of the clause immediately pre- 
ceding by a quotation from Isaiah, ch. 
xl. 13, comp. Rom. xi. 34; to be able to 
judge of the mvevyarixéds, a man must 
not only have, as we have, the mind of 
Christ, but must even be able to in- 
struct Him. The complete syllogism 
would be as follows: ‘no one (scil. 
‘qui merus homo sit,’ Bengel) knows 
the mind of the Lord, and can thus be 
able to instruct Him; but we who are 
mvevparicot have the mind of Christ ; it 
follows then that we cannot be known, 
and so be judged of or instructed by 
anyone who is not a mvevyarixds as we 
are.’ In the quotation Képtos obviously 
refers to God; here however, as used 
by St. Paul, it refers as obviously to 
Christ, otherwise the minor of the 
syllogism would have no logical force. 
Such interchanges are evidences of no 
slight weight of St. Paul’s innermost 
conviction of the Godhead of Christ. 
vovv Kuplov the mind of the Lord; 
not, ‘the spirit of the Lord’ (Neander), 
and hardly so little as ‘the intent and 
disposition of the Lord’ (Alf.), but, 
generally, His mnd,— alike the willing 
and the thinking faculty: see especially 
the clear and thoughtful comments of 
Delitzsch, B7b/. Psychol. iv. 5, p. 212 sq. 
(Transl.). The omission of the article 
is probably due to the principle of 
correlation: the gen. Kuplov is, as not 
unfrequently in that case (Winer, Gr. § 
19, I, s. v.), used here without the 
article; being absent from the governed 
noun it is absent also from the govern- 


Cuap. II. 16.-III. 1. 1 CORINTHIANS. 


69 


I have been constrained, 


phave been constrained, IIT. Kayo, adedpoi, ove 7dvv7iOnv radjoar 


among you, to treat you as men of carnal minds. 


III. 1. Kay] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very 
greatly preponderating authority: Rec., kad éyd. gapkivas] So the above 
critical editions, on very clearly preponderating authority: Rec. capkixois The 
reading of Rec. is defended by Reiche, Comment. Crit. Part 1. p. 138, with con- 
siderable plausibility: the critical evidence, however, seems conclusive for the 


less usual form. 


ing noun; see notesoz Zph. v.8. The 
word vois is etymologically connected 
with T'NQ, Sancr. ga, and primarily 
involves the ideas of perception and 
knowledge; see Curtius, Griech. Etym. 
p- 163 (ed. 2), Pott, Ztym. Forsch. Vol. 
I. p. 182 sq. (ed. 1), Benfey, Wurzellex. 
Vol. 11. p. 143. On the distinction be- 
tween vods and mvedua, see notes oz 
Phil, iv. 7, and on 1 Tim. vi. 5. 

8s cupBiBacer] ‘ who shall instruct, i.e. 
‘so as to instruct, Syr., al.— the relative 
sentence here approximating to the 
final, and the és having something of 
the force of &ore: see Kriger, Sprachl. 
§ 51. 13. 10, Jelf, Gr. § 836. 4. The 
meaning of ovpBi8. is properly ‘to put 
together’ (comp. Eph. iv. 16, Col. ii. 2, 
19, and notes zz /occ.), but, in later 
Greek, as here, has the naturally 
derived meaning ‘izstruere,  scil. 
‘docere;’ Hesych. cupBiBa- diddonw; 
Suid. cupBiBd wr diddonwy : see exx. in 
Wetst. Zest. Vol. 11. p. 109. It only 
occurs in two other passages, viz. Acts 
ix. 22, where the meaning is ‘to prove 
or demonstrate’ (comp. Syr. 27 /oc.) and 
in Acts xvi. 10, where it implies to 
‘conclude’ or ‘ draw a clear inference ;’ 
‘certi facti,’ Vulg., erorxaCduevor, Chrys. 
Hpets 88 «.t.A.] ‘det we have the mind 
of Christ, scil. we who are mvevyatikol. 
So close is the union of Christ with 
the true believer, so truly does Christ 
dwell in him (Rom. viii. 10, Gal. ii. 20, 
Eph. iii. 17), and he in Christ (John xv. 
4 sq.), that not merely @cidés tis vods 
(Cyril, ap. Cramer, Ca/.) but the very 


mind of Christ is vouchsafed to him by 
the Holy Ghost. On this ‘unio mys- 
tica,’ and the sanctification which is 
its immediate consequence, see Rothe, 
Dogmatik, Ul. 2, § 71, p. 250, Philippi, 
Glaubensl. IV. 1. p. 133, Hutter Redi- 
vivus, § 116, p. 287, and comp. Bp. 
Hall, Christ Mystical, ch. 2. 3. The 
reading Kuplov (for Xpicrod) is well 
supported (Zachm., with BD'FG; Aug., 
Boern., al. ; Lat. Ff), but the probability 
of a conformation to the preceding 
Kuplov is so great that we seem fully 
justified, with Zisch., Treg. Rev., 
Westc. and fort, in retaining the 
Received Text. 


Ill. 1-4. Lxemplification of the 
Soregoing principles in the labors of the 
Apostle at Corinth. 

1. Kaya] ‘And J too, acted on the 
principle above specified; the rai sug- 
gesting that the Apostle was con- 
strained to regard the Corinthians as 
Wuxucol, and to act as any other mvevua- 
tixds must have acted towards them. 
The 7duvndnv skilfully mitigates the 
feelings which might have been called 
Out: Kad@s 5é elie, 7d, ovK HOUYHOnY, iva 
Bh Bdkn 5d POdvov adrois rd TeAeidTepov 

Kh eimetv, Theoph.; see also Chrys. cz :; 
loc. GAN ds capklvors] ‘but (vas 
compelled to speak to you) as unto fleshly 
men ;’ the affirmative sentence natu- 
rally emerging out of the preceding 
negative one; see Jelf, Gr. § 896. 9. 
The exact meaning of the term capki- 
vos is slightly doubtful. Besides this 


70 


‘ 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap! TE. "1,2; 


€ lal € a > ’ rR ul ig / > Lal 
bpivy WS TVEvpATLKOIS GAN @S capkivols, WS VnTloWs ev XpioTe. 
2ydha was erotica, ov Bpdua, ovTw yap edvvacbe: * adn’ ovdé 


2. The Received Text must be changed in this verse in three particulars, 


with Lachm., Tisch. Treg. Rev. [in 1st and 3rd] Westc. and Hort. 


(1) The 


kai must be omitted before ov, on very clearly preponderating authority; (2) 
édvvacbe must be read instead of 7ddvacGe, on greatly preponderating authority ; 
and (3) ovdé instead of ore, on very greatly preponderating authority. Lachm., 
and Westc. and Hort place ér in brackets, but on the sole uncial authority of B. 


passage it is found (without any varia- 
tion of reading) in 2 Cor. iii. 3, and 
(according to the best text) in Rom. 
vii. 14 and Heb. vii. 16. In these two 
latter passages and in the present verse 
it is deemed by Fritz (Rom. Z.c.) and 
others as only a transcriber’s mistake 
for capxiuds. Others, admitting the 
reading, deny any real distinction be- 
tween the adjectives. This, however, 
does not seem lexically correct. Here, 
as usually, the termination in -wos 
marks the fuller presence of the ele- 
ment or quality of the substantive (see 
Kriiger, Sprachl. § 41. II. 19, and 
comp. Lobeck, Pathol. p. 200), and is 
apparently deliberately chosen. The 
Corinthians were regarded by the 
Apostle @s odpkiwor,—as, and as in 
the light of (on this use of s, see note 
on Eph. v. 22), men of flesh: not 
merely men ethically influenced by it 
(carnales), but wholly composed of it 
(carnei): see Trench, Syzon. § 72, p. 
257. sq. (ed. 7), and also Hofmann zz 
loc. (who regards caprixés as equivalent 
to eivat kaT& odpKa, and cdpkuvos to eivat 
év oapki), and Delitzsch, oz Hed. vii. 
16. On the distinction between capxixéds 
and uxinds, see notes on ver. 3. 

as vaio év Xpirra] ‘as unto babes 
in Christ, opp. to reAetots év Xp. (Col. 
i. 28): further specification of the 
spiritual state of the Corinthians ; they 
were, in relation to Christ, at the very 
commencement of spiritual life. Par- 
allel ermressions are cited from Rab- 


binical writers by Schoettg. 2 Zoc., and 
by Lightfoot. “or. Hebr. (in Loc.); 
comp. Buxtorf, Zex. Talm. p. 962. 
The ev Xpior@, as usually, denotes the 
sphere in which they were vjmot: they 
had been baptized and so were in 
Christ, but in reference to their prog- 
ress (comp. Grot.) they were very babes. 
On the expression év Xp., see notes oz 
Gala. 17, v.10, p72. 4.) 0, d.1O,ale, ane 
see Hooker, Serm. 111. Vol. III. p. 
763, Martensen, Dogm. § 176, p. 325 
(Transl.). 

2. yada twas émdética] ‘7 gave you 
milk to drink,’ — scil. elementary teach- 
ing (amAovotépa didacKadAla, Theoph.), 
or, in other words, tov tis apxis Tov 
Xpiocrod Adyov, Heb. vi. 1; comp. 2 Pet. 
ii. 2. The contrast is Bp@ua (oreped 
tpopy, Origen), which suitably repre- 
sents the teAesorépa SidacKadrla (The- 
oph.) and deeper teaching of evangel- 
ical truths. On the very intelligible 
zeugma (érética ... Bp@ua) see Winer, 
Gr. § 66. 2, Wilke, WV. Z. Rhet, § 33. dd, 
p- 130; and on the meanings and con- 
struction of morfw, the elaborate note 
of Valcken. Scho/. Vol. I. p. 140. © 
otra yap ivacbe] ‘for ye were not yet 
strong enough ;’? the verb being here 
used absolutely, as in earlier Greek 
(Plato, AZen0, p. 77 B, Xenoph. Azad. 
IV. 5. 11, al.), and not uncommonly in 
later Greek (1 Mace. v. 41, Polyb. 2st. 
II. 49. 1), and marking generally their 
state of spiritual powerlessness; 5a 
TovTo ov Svivavtat, didTs ov OéAovcrt mvev- 


Cuap. III. 2-3. 


x a Uy ” \ tLe ) 
ére vov Svvacbe* étt yap capKixol éaTe. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 1 


4 \ > C2 ~ 
O7rou yap ev wutv Eros 


Kal Epis, ovyl capKixol éote Kai Kata avOpwirov TepiTatéite ; 


3. Epis, ovxi K.T.A.] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on what 
must be deemed clearly preponderating authority: Rec. adds nal Sixooracta 


after Eps. 


It may be admitted that it is not exactly easy to see how the words 


kal dixooractat came to be inserted, unless we are to suppose that the insertion 
arose from some remembrance of Gal v. 20. 


parttKol eivat, Theoph. : apparently Copt., 
fith., Arm., and most modern com- 
mentators. GAN’ ob8é ert viv Sv- 
vac-Qe] ‘zay, nor even now are ye strong 
enough.’ Yet, as Meyer observes, we 
have in ch. xv. a clear case of Bpdua. 
This, however, may be accounted for, 
not by the apologetic aspects of the 
chapter (ver. 12), but simply by the 
fact that Christ’s resurrection and, 
consequently, our resurrection, was 
really an elementary truth; the Apostle 
preached rdy “Ingobdy kal thy avdotacw 
(Acts xvii. 13; see Meyer 7 Joc.) to 
men that were even more vfmo than 
the Corinthians. On the formula &Av’ 
avdé (‘at ne—guidem, or. ‘gquin ne— 
guidem,’ Fritz. Marc. p. 157), see notes 
on Gal. ii. 3, where the expression is 
shortly discussed. It may be 
observed that Westc. and Hort make 
these words commence anew paragraph. 
The sort of rhetorical link between 
the édtvace and the SivacGe that fol- 
lows it seems to be too strong thus 
to be broken. 

3. wapKkikol] ‘carzal.’ The Apostle 
now passes to the more ethically dis- 
tinctive and more really reproachful 
word. The distinction in meaning 
between this word and gdpkwos has 
already been noticed on ver. 1; it re- 
mains only to notice how it differs 
from yvuyxinds, this being the epithet 
that would naturally have suggested 
itself from the closing verses of the 
last chapter. The difference would 
seem to be this. The wuxinds is the 
natural man, and who, as such, is xwpls 


Xpicrod (Eph. ii. 12), and has never 
experienced the regenerating influences 
of the Holy Ghost. The capxikés, 
however, is one who has received the 
ordinary gifts of the Spirit, but who, 
nevertheless, has yielded to the power 
of the odpé, in the great struggle (Gal. 
v. 17), and has become a kata odpka 
On the true meaning of 
odpé, and so of capkikds, see notes and 
references on ch. i. 26, oz Gal. v. 16, 
and oz Col. ii. II. Srrov yap] ‘for 
where,’ — hardly so much as ‘ whereas,’ 
Auth. (‘cum enim,’ Vulg.), the local 
idea still being distinctly traceable, 
both here and even 2 Pet. ii. 11, and 
the meaning being ‘in cases where;’ 
so rightly, Bengel, ‘ubi.’ That the 
particle may sometimes have an ap- 
proximately causal sense cannot per- 
haps be denied (see exx. in Palm. u 
Rost, Zex. s.v.); where, however, the 
proper meaning caz be maintained it 
seems our duty to maintain it. 

tAdos Kat epis] ‘envy and contention ;’ 
‘specified in equally close connection, 
but in a different order, among the 
works of the flesh, in Gal. v. 20. The 
present order is perhaps the more 
exact; mathp yap 6 (ijAos ths epidos, 
Theoph. kata d&vOpwtrov treputra- 
tetre] ‘walk after the manner of men ;’ 
‘sequuntur naturz ductum,’ Calvin. 
On the various meanings of kara &vOpw- 
mov (‘humano more,’ Bengel), see Fritz 
Rom. iil. 5, Vol. I. p. 160; and on the 
metaphorical meaning of mepimrareiv 
(‘course of life in its practical aspects 
and manifestations ’) see notes on Phil. 


TEpLTAT OV. 


1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. III. 3-5. 


72 


*orav yap réyn Tis “Eyo pév eis Tlavnov, érepos 8é “Eyo 
"ATrorrd, otk avOpwtroi éoTe ; 

I and Apollos are but Jaborers 5'J'/ pry 2 is Pos bet Yeo 
rede Rene ee Ti otv éotw ’AtroAXws ; Ti bé eotw 
foundation. What is built thereon will be sharply tested at the last day. 


4. ovk &vOpwrol éore ] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, the 
ove resting on clearly, and the-&6pwmo: on greatly, preponderating authority: 
Rec., ovx) capkixot éore. 

5. Ti—t] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on prepon- 
derating authority, correction being here especially probable: Rec., Tls —ris. 
The order ’AmoAAés —TadAos is also adopted in the above-mentioned edd. on 
very greatly preponderating authority: ec. inverts, and omits the second 
éoriv, on clearly insufficient authority. Lastly @Aa’ # is found in Rec. before 
didkovo, but rejected by the above-mentioned edd. on very greatly preponder- 


ating authority. 


iii. 18, and oz 1 Thess. iv. 12; comp. 
also Suicer, Zhesaur. s.v. Vol. Il. p. 
679. The gloss of Estius is thus per- 
fectly correct, ‘affectus humanos et 
carnales in vita et actionibus suis os- 
tendere:’ the true idea being not 
merely capkixd kal avOpémiva kal mpdovyera 
gpovety (Theoph.), but the manifestation 
of the same in the ‘agendi vivendique 
ratio.’ 

4. 8rav yap Aéyy Tis] ‘for when one 
saith ;’ confirmation of the statement 
involved in the preceding question. 
The 8ray is obviously not ‘while’ 
(Auth.), but, as always in the N.T., 
retains its conditioned temporal sense; 
‘in each case when such party spirit is 
shown are ye not verily men?’ comp. 
Hofmann 77 Zoc. eyo pev «tA, 
‘IT am of Paul, and another, I am of 
Afolios.’ The Apostle here only speci- 
fies two parties (contrast ch. i. 12), 
not perhaps from any studied refer- 
ence in what immediately follows to 
the differences between those who 
claimed to be of the Apollos party and 
himself (Meyer), but, most probably, 
simply from the fact that he and Apol- 
los had personally most to do with 
the Corinthian Church, and were thus 
the two names that it was most natural 
for him to use in illustration of the 


¢jjAos and épis specified in ver. 3; comp. 
ch. iv. 6. 

ovk dvOpwrol éore] ‘are ye not mere 
men ?’?— walkers kata &vOpwrov, ver. 
3? That &@pwro here involves no 
depreciatory meaning (Hofmann) can- 
not be maintained in the face of the 
context. It is of course admitted that 
the word does not necessarily imply 
any depreciatory meaning, even when 
closely associated with the expression 
kata &vOpwrov (compare Gal. iii. 15); 
but when the meaning of the kara 
&vOpwrov, as here, is clearly specified 
by the context, and &@pwro, in a 
somewhat unusual question, imme- 
diately follows, all sound principles of 
interpretation appear to justify our as- 
signing to the word in the second case 
the same meaning that it has in the 
first. In all such cases the shade of 
meaning is to be sought for, not in 
the word, but in the context: comp. 
Xenoph. Cyrop. VI. 2. 4, émelmep tvOpw- 
mol éouev auddrepot. 


5-15. Specification of the relation be- 
tween Apollos and himself, and thence 
of the duties and responsibilities of 
Christian teachers generally. 

5. Tt obv «.r.X.] ‘ What then is Apollos ? 
and what is Paul?’ the rl conveying 


Cuap. III. 5, 6. 


tT CORINTHIANS: 73 


lol 3 > @ > LA x € , id id ¢ 
TIadnos ; Sidxovor 60 av emictevoate, Kat ExdoT@ ws 6 Kupsos 


EOWKED. 


more broadly and generally than the 
masc. (comp. Winer, Gr. § 27. 5, Bern- 
hardy, Syzz. VII. 4, p. 336) the abstract 
idea of the subject referred to, ‘What 
is there really in either one or the 
other?’ comp. notes oz Gad. iii. 19. 
The exact reference of oy is perhaps 
slightly doubtful. It certainly might 
be referred to the clause immediately 
preceding (Hofmann), and so be held 
to justify Hofmann’s rendering of the 
&vOpwro. (‘Menschen, und nicht ge- 
ringeres’) in ver. 4, but is much more 
naturally taken, in its common re¢ro- 
spective sense (‘redit ad institutum,’ 
Bengel), in reference to the whole tenor 
of the preceding verse, — ‘ there being 
such party-spirit, and so openly dis- 
played, I must ask the question :’ (see 
Donalds. Gr. § 548, Klotz, Devar. Vol. 
Il. p. 717 sq. and the notes and reff. 
GeeG eis by £27070. atl. Te 

Sidkovor] ‘ mzz7sters, — and so not 
heads of sects or parties; ‘non autores 
fidei vestree, sed ministri duntaxat,’ 
Erasmus 77 Joc. On the meaning and 
true derivation of Sidkovos, see notes 
on Eph. iii. 7. SU dv émoretoate] 
‘through whom ye believed :’ ‘per quos, 
non zz guos, Bengel, The general 
term émotevoate refers primarily to 
the first introduction into the faith 
(Rom. xiii. 11), but, as the context 
seems to suggest, may also refer to 
subsequent stages. It is proper, how- 
ever, to say that if this had been in- 
tended by the Apostle to be very dis- 
tinctly marked, he would have used 
the perfect remoredeare: comp. I John 
Venlo; 2 Wim. i. 02,-aly, Kal éxdorTe 
k.t.A] ‘and as the Lord gave unto each ;’ 
the «af having its fullest force (‘et 
quidem,’ Kiihner, Gr. § 521. 2), and 
adding a further detail to what was 
already specified; see in reference to 

10 


Séym éputevoa, “AToANwS EroTIcEeV, GANA O Oeos 


this and other uses of kat, the notes 
on Phil. iv. 12, and comp. also notes 
on Gal. vi. 16. For’examples of a 
similar position of the éxdorw, comp. 
ch. vii. 17, and Rom. xii. 3: it is ob- 
viously due to the stress which the 
Apostle wished to lay on the added 
fact that each of these didcovo: had his 
specially given powers; ‘ministri Dei 
sunt, iique diversa habentes ministeria,’ 
Est. ; o05€ abd Td wikpdy 7d Tis Siakovias 
Tapa éavtay Exouev, GAA Kal TOTO Tapa 
Tov Kuplou eiAnpauey &AAOS BAAW LETpY, 
Theoph. To refer éxdotw to the 
hearers, sc. each one of those who 
believed (see Alf.), is out of harmony 
with the context, which clearly only 
refers to the teachers, —the ‘doctores 
de quibus hic agitur,’ Vorst. The 
exact reference of 6 Kupios is perhaps 
slightly doubtful: the context (ver.6, 9, 
10), however, seems to decide in favor 
of the reference being to God (Chrys., 
al.), rather than to Christ, as Theoph., 
Maier, al.; comp. 2 Cor. vi. 4. 

6. épirevora] ‘ planted,’ scil. the faith 
of Christ in the Corinthian Church; 
mp@tos KatéBadoy toy Adyov, Chrys. 
The faith of the Corinthians is regarded 
as a plant which the Apostle placed in 
the earth, and which was watered by 
Apollos. Hofmann (zz Zoc.) objects to 
this separation between the acts, but 
certaimly without sufficient reason: in 
the inspired narrative (Acts xviii. 27- 
xix. I) differences of agency seem 
clearly implied; see ver. 27 (d.c.), 
cuveBdAeTo TOAY Tots TemorTevKdoW did 
Ths xapitos, where the latter verb and 
tense is certainly noticeable. 
éméticev] ‘watered:’ ‘rigare est doc- 
trine Christiane jam plantate et 
fundate superaddere preecepta, quibus 
conservetur et augeatur,’ Menoch. zz 
loc. nitavev] ‘was giving the 


74 


nuéaver. 7 


6 avEavwv Ocos. 


dé tov iSvov pucOov Anprperar Kata Tov idiov KoTroY. 


growth: imperfect; the acts of the 
ministers are expressed by aorists, the 
continued gracious power of God by 
the more suitable tense; comp. 
Wordsw. zz foc. The distinction is 
not marked in any of the Vv. and is 
even obliterated by Theoph., 6 eds 
niinoey buas. 

7. wore] ‘So then,’— consequence 
immediately flowing from the preceding 
statement, the particle, as usual, de- 
noting, ‘consecutionem ‘alicujus rei ex 
antecedentibus,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. I. 
p- 771. On the difference between 
éore with indic., as here, and with the 
infin., see Donalds. Gr. § 596, Kiihner. 
Gr. § 586. 1, and notes o Gai. ii. 13. 
éorty ti] ‘2s anything (whatever) ;’ not 
merely ‘anything of importance’ 
(comp. Acts v. 36, Gal. ii. 6, and notes 
im @oc.), but really ‘anything at all,’ 
when compared with 6 avdidvwy Ocds: 
so rightly Chrys., ovdév éoruv. 
GAN 6 avé&dvev Oeds] ‘but God that 
giveth the growth,’ sc. ‘is everything,’— 
the grammatical supplement being éoti 
tt, but the obvious contextual supple- 
ment being T4 mdyta, ‘adeo, quia solus, 
omnia,’ Bengel; comp. ch. vii. 19, and 
for examples of this very intelligible 
brachylogy, see Jelf. MG § 893, Wilke. 
Rhetorik, § 32. a, p. 12 

8, 6 dutedwv 8 x. oe ] ‘Now oe that 
planteth and he that watereth are one,— 
scil. in reference to their ministeria 
duty (kara thy droupyiay, Theod.), and 
the oneness of spirit (Hofmann) which 
a faithful discharge of it necessarily 
implied: transition from the workers 
and their work to the consideration of 
their relations to each other, and, subse- 
quently, of their recompense. The 
first clause of the verse states that 
though different in the external form 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


CuapP. III. 6-9. 


wate ovTe 6 huTevwv éotiv TL ovTE 6 TroTifwy, GAN 


8 € (A \ 0 WI 4 tf iA > isa 
6 putevov Sé Kai 0 TOTiSwY Ev Elow, EXaTTOS 


9 Mcod 


of their working they are one in the 
inward principle of it (comp. Theod.) : 
the second clause adds the further 
statement, that though thus one, yet 
that they will have rewards propor- 
tioned to the nature and amount of 
individual labor. éxacros 8 
K.T.A.] ‘yet each one shall receive his 
own reward according to his own toil :’ 
Hh poBod, tt eimov, Br ev ciot.... emet 
mévwv €vekev OUK Elolv, GAAG ExaoTos ToY 
YWiov micddyv Ahera, Chrys. The em- 
phasis obviously rests on the twice 
repeated Y.ov: individuality in toil will 
have individuality in reward. On the 
meaning and derivation of kézos 
(‘molestus labor’), see notes on I 
Thess. i. 3, ii. 9. It is probably here 
used in preference to épyov for the 
reason alluded to by Theophylact,— rt 
yap ei Epyov ovn éréAccev ; exotiage 5é: 
comp. Bengel. 

9g. Ocod yap «t.A.] ‘For we are 
Goa’s fellow-laborers,— God’s, and so 
certain of a reward according to our 
works and deservings, comp. Rom. ii. 
659: confirmation, not of the whole 
preceding verse (Osiand.), but of the 
assertion immediately preceding, the 
emphasis obviously resting on the word 
@cod, both in this and in the succeeding 
clauses. DeWette regards the present 
verse rather as a summary of what had 
preceded, but thus obscures the force 
of the yap, which here certainly seems 
to be coxjirmatory rather than explana- 
tory. On this latter use see notes ov 
Gal. ii. 6. It is hardly necessary to 
add that the elevating statement @Qeov 
cuvepyot cannot here possibly mean 
‘fellow-laborers for, or, in reference to, 
God,’ but, in accordance with regular 
and grammatical usage, simply ‘ Dei 
adjutores,’ Vulg., Copt. (‘socii opera- 


Cuap. III. 9. to. 


TC Om PNiivE lr AUNTS... 


15 


/ > / . lal , lal 3 / ’ 
yap éopev avvepyoi: Ocov yewpy.ov, Ocov oiKooouN éaTe. 


0 Kata tv yapw Tod Ocod tiv Soleicdy por ws copos apyt- 


TéextT@v Oewerdov €Onka, aGAXdos Sé éerrovKodoUE?. 


éxaotos 6€ Bre- 


10. 2@nxa] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev. Westc. and Hort, on clearly pre- 
ponderating authority: Rec., Té@eKa,—a correction perhaps designed to mark 
more precisely the time of the act referred to. 


tores’), Aith., al.; comp. 1 Thess. iii. 2, 
Rom. xvi. 3, 9, 21, Phil. ii. 25, al.. and 
see Bernhardy, Syzt. Ill. 49, p- 171, 
Jelf, Gr. § 519. The expression is well 
elucidated by Mark xvi. 20; comp. 
Estius zz Joc. Ocod yedpyrov 
KTA.] ‘ye are God's field, God’s 
building, scil. His field in which we 
labor, His building which we strive to 
raise; the first metaphor being in 
accordance with the foregoing imagery 
(ver. 6-8), the latter serving to intro- 
duce that which follows. The word 
yewpytov (‘verbum late pateng, agrum, 
hortum, vineam complectens,’ Bengel) 
is here obviovsly in its concrete sense,— 
not ‘agricolatio, Erasmus (comp. 
Clarom., Vulg., Copt., Arm., al.; see 
Ecclus. xxvii. 6), but ‘ager’ (&ypos, 
Chrys.), in accordance with the asso- 
ciated concrete subst. oirodouh: comp. 
Prov. xxiv. 30, xxxi. 6, and see the 
examples in Steph. Zesazz.s. v. Vol. 
II. p. 602 (ed. Hase and Dindorf.) 

The general drift of the verse is rightly 
explained by Chrys. as a further 
implied argument for unity; ‘if ye are 
God’s field and building there ought to 
be unity, and not parties and factions ; ‘ 
see also Hofmann 27 oc. 

IO. KaTa Tiv KXapwv K.T.A.] § According 
to the grace which was given unto me, 
generally as an Apostle, and specially 
as a founder of the Corinthian Church ;’ 
see Hofmann zz /oc., and comp. Rom. 
xv. 20. The Apostle desires promi- 
nently to mark that all his wisdom and 
power came from God (‘refert ad 
Deum omnia,’ Calvin), and that it was 
owing to that alone that he was 


enabled to do the work of the codbds 
apxitextwy ; see Chrys. and Theoph. zz 
loc. @s gods apXitéxrav] ‘as 
a skilful master builder, acting in such 
a character; the @s marking the aspect 
under which he sought to do his work 
(see notes oz Eph. v. 22, Col. iii. 23), 
and the co@és having here its derivative, 
but by no means uncommon, meaning, 
‘peritus,’ Bengel, al.,; iAdrexvos, 
Hesych.; comp. Isaiah iii. 5, Exod. 
xxxv. 10, and the exx. collected by 
Wetst. 7 loc. Oepédvov eOnka] 
‘I lad the foundation ;’ comp. Acts 
xviii. I sq. The word @eueédios is 
properly an adjective (OewéAror AiOo1, 
Aristoph. Av. 1137), but is used most 
commonly absolutely, not only in the 
plural, Thucyd. 77st. 1. 93, but, as 
here, in the singular; see Eph. ii. 20, 1 
Tim. vi. 19. The gender (@euéAsos or 
@eucAtov) is often indeterminate; here, 
however, it is clearly masculine; see 
ver. 11. The @euéduos is here, as the 
context shows, Jesus Christ (ver. 11): 
on Him, preached objectively and 
historically, and accepted in the heart 
subjectively, rested in security the 
Corinthian Church. dos Sé 
érrokodopet] ‘ard (the copulative ele- 
ment in this particle here predominat- 
ing; see Kiihner, Gr. § 532. 1) another 
builds thereupon ;’ this ‘other’ being 
any teacher who followed the Apostle 
and essayed to build up the Corinthian 
Church. The reference is not specially 
to Apollos, but is’ studiously left un- 
defined and general; ‘alius, quisquis 
est,’ Bengel. TOS errorkodopet] 
‘how he builds thereupon ;’ not ‘quam 


76 


TETO TOS €TrOLKOOOMEL. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


CHAPA IIT, 12. 


1 Meuédvov yap addov ovdes SvvaTau 


6 ~ \ \ / ov b im al x , 12 .? dé 
elvat Tapa TOV KELMLEVOV, OS EOTLV NOOVUS PloTos. €l O€ TLS 


ind ‘x ies} \ \ UA / ? , / s 
€rroLKodopmel emt TOV Oeuéduov, Ypolov, apyupLor, NiBovs Tiptous, 


Il. "Ingods Xpiotds] So Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on preponder- 
ating authority; Zachm., Xpirtbds "Inoods: Rec. "Incods 6 Xpiotds, but on the 


authority of only a few cursive mss. 
12 Toy OewéArov 


So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly 
preponderating authority: Rec. adds rodrov. 


xpuciov, apytpiov]. So Tisch., 


Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on preponderant authority: Rec., Lachm., xpuady, 


&pyupov. 


sapienter ; quam affabre’ (Bengel), but 
simply, with what materials, ‘qualem 
doctrinam fidei in fundamento posite 
superaddat,’ Estius ; see ver. 12, where 
the materials are specified. ‘Ostendit 
rem esse periculi plenam,’ Grotius. 

11. OcpéAvov yap «.t.A.] ‘or other 
foundation can no man lay:’ reason 
for the foregoing warning and the 
reference simply to the émorxodouobyTes ; 
it was because there could not be any 
other foundation than one, that atten- 
tion has to be directed exclusively to 
the superstructure. De Wette regards 
the ydp as suggestive of the reference 
of més (ver. 10), not so much to the 
materials (see above), as to the idea 
of a possible alteration of the founda- 
tion: ‘in building thereupon let him 
not alter the foundation, for etc.’ 
This, however, does not seem in har- 
mony with what follows; in ver. 12 it 
is simply the materials built upon the 
foundation that form the special sub- 
ject of consideration; see Maier and 
Hofmann zz Joc. Tapa Tov 
kelwevov] ‘beside that (already) laid ;’ 
not by the Apostle in this particular 
case (De Wette, al.), but, as the whole 
context seems to suggest, by Him who 
has laid it for every case, scil. by God. 
The change to the neutral term kelwevov 
seems clearly to confirm this reference : 
the one foundation was ever lying ready, 
and it was used by each founder of a 
Church in each individual case. When 


St. Paul preached Christ crucified and 
risen to the Corinthians, he used for 
them the one foundation on which 
alone their Church, or any other 
Church, could safely rest. On this 
use of mapé after &AAos, comp. Winer, 
Gr. 36. 2, and the exx. collected by 
Stalbaum on Plato, Przled. 51 D. 
*Invots Xpiords] ‘Jesus Christ ;’ the 
personal, Christ, who died, rose, and 
ascended into heaven, and who is in 
Himself the substance and summary 
of all teaching; comp. Weiss, 4702. 
Theol. § 32. 6, Vol. 11. p. 32 (Transl.). 
12. eb 8 «t.A.] ‘But if any man 
buildeth ;’ continuation of the com- 
parison and contrast between the work 
of the builder and that of the layer of 
the foundation, the 5¢ retaining some 
tinge of its primary etymological force 
(‘further,’ ‘in the second place’), and | 
marking more specifically the transition 
of thought to the émonoddunois: see 
Donalds. Craz. § 155, and notes oz Gal. 
iii. 23. In reference to the general 
tenor of the verse it may be said that 
most expositors seem now agreed in 
considering that the reference is not to 
different buildings, but to a single 
building of which the different portions 
consist of different work and materials, 
some valuable and lasting (xpvuatov, 
«.7.A.), some but of little value and 
perishable (fdAa, «.7.A.); see Meyer zx 
loc, De Wette, al. Secondly, the 
materials must apparently refer, not to 


Cuap. III. 12, 13. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


TT 


/- , / 138 > /, x vy XN , 
Eva, yopTov, Kadapnv, ¥ éxaoTov TO Epyov pavepov yevnocetat: 


e \ co & wo er > aS Xv p NSE A 
n yap NEPA On O€l, OTL EV TrUPL QTTOKANUTTTETAL* KAL EKAD TOV 


the persons taught (Severian, al. ; comp. 
Hofmann, and even, to some extent, 
Bengel), which seems to confuse the 
imagery, but to the matter and sub- 
stance of the different teachings,— here 
roughly grouped into the two classes— 
whether ‘doctrina solida, sincera’ 
(Est.), on the one hand, or ‘falsa et 
sublesta’ (Bengel), on the other. The 
reference of Chrys., Theod., and most 
of the patristic commentators to the 
moral fruits of the hearers (a&per Blov, 
Chrys.) is plausible, but open to this 
grave objection—that the context 
seems exclusively to direct attention to 
the moral worth of something apper- 
taining to the teachers, and not to that 
of something appertaining to the taught. 
We, therefore, with some of the older 
(Theodorus, al.) and most modern ex- 
positors (Calvin, Neander, De Wette, 
al.) refer the materials to the doctrines 
and teachings of the spiritual builders : 
see the short but clear comment of 
Theodorus (Cramer, Catez.p, 61), and 
a sensible sermon by Saurin, Sermons, 
Vol. vil. p. 336 sq. (Paris, 1835). 

AlWovus Tiplous] ‘costly stones,’ scil. mar- 
ble, ‘lapides nobiles,’ Bengel, not 
‘gems’ (Copt., al. ; comp. Isaiah liv. 11, 
12, and Rev. xxii. 19 sq., to which 
Origen 77 /oc. here refers), the reference 
being more naturally to the usual 
materials of a building ; comp. Grot. 2 
Zoc., who, however, goes unnecessarily 
into detail. 

13. €xaorou] ‘ cach man’s,’—not with- 
out distinct emphasis. The Apostle 
marks the individual responsibility at- 
taching itself to each teacher; comp. 
ver. 10, €kaoTos 5¢ BAewéTw THs érrotko- 
Boue?; see also ver. 8. 4 yap 
Hpépa Syrdorer] ‘for the day shall de- 
clare it ;’ scil. the day of judgment, 7 
ais Kolcews, Theod., ‘ universalis judicii,’ 


Est.; comp. Heb. x. 25, 2 Tim. i. 18, 
al. Other references that have been 
suggested, viz. — (a) the destruction of 
Jerusalem (Hamm, Lightf., Schoettg.), 
— (6) the special time when the truth 
will become apparent (Calvin, al.),— 
(c) time, in its course [Grotius, al.), or 
lastly, (¢) ‘dies tribulationis’ (Augus- 
tine, al.),—all distinctly fall short of 
the solemn reference to the true time 
of recompense (Seamdtov davévtos Ku- 
piov, Theodorus), and day of final man- 
ifestation and award. Even Hofmann, 
who seems often to be biassed against 
generally received exegesis, here adopts 
the current interpretation. 

bru év wupl aroxahimrerat] ‘because it 
is reveated in fire, scil. ‘in it,’ as the 
allsurrounding element (Bernhardy, 
Synt. p. 209; comp. 2 Thess. i. 8, é& 
doy mupds) ; reason why the day will 
so declare the work and teaching. To 
refer the verb either to 7b épyov in the 
first clause of the verse (Theoph., Ne- 
ander 2), or to Kupios, mentally sug- 
gested by 7 muépa (Bengel), seems 
distinctly inadmissible. The former 
reference would be tautologous; the 
second would import an idea not patent 
in the context. The mip thus cannot 
be any antecedent purgatorial fire 
(comp. Neand.), nor any metaphorical 
fire (‘Spiritus Domini, qui examine suo 
probat,’ Calvin, — who has thoroughly 
failed in this passage), but, simply and 
contextually, that associated with the 
hmépa (2 Thess. /.c.), sc. ‘ignis confla- 
grationis,’ Estius. This fire will be, by 
the nature of the case, ‘probatorius,’ 
(comp August. Exchirid. cap. 68); it 
will try (Soxudoe), as the natural fire 
tries, and will consume whatever can- 
not stand the test; see Saurin, Serm. 
Vol. vu. p. 348, and compare the cu- 
rious and suggestive comments of Bur- 


78 ; 1 CORINTHIANS. 


\ ” c ar bl X\ nr 
TO €pyov omrolovy €oTLY TO TUp 


Epyov pevel 6 éerrm@Kodounoer, pucOov AjpabeTac: 


13. Td wip avtd] So Lachm., Tisch., 


Cuap. III. 13-15. 


ee 5 ‘ 1427 x 
QUTO OOKLLACEL. €l TLWOS TO 


ef Tivos TO 


Treg., Rev. Westc. and Hort, on pre- 


ponderating authority, the omission being much more likely than the insertion : 


Rec. omits avr. 


net, State of Departed, ch. VI. p. 147 
sqq. The present aroxad. is what is 
called the ‘ethical’ present, and marks 
the solemn certainty of the issue; see 
Winer, Gr. § 40. 2, Schmalfeld, Syzz. 
§ 54. 2, p. 91, and notes oz Eph. v. 5. 
Kal éxdorov K.t.A.] ‘and each man’s 
work, of what sort it ts, the fire itself 
shall try ;’ the éxdorov, as above, main- 
taining its prominence, and the clause 
itself carrying out further the statement 
in the first member of the verse, —‘ the 
work shall become manifest, and the 
fire shall test.’ It is doubtful whether 
épyov is to be considered as a nom. 
(Meyer, al.), or accus. (Syr., Copt., al.). 
The latter seems simpler, and is in 
closer harmony with the connection of 
the opening clause. The airéd marks 
that the fire by its own proper action, 
apart from all other agencies, will apply 
the test. That this test will involve 
something of a furifying character 
(contrast Bengel) can hardly be denied 
(consider 1 Pet. i. 6, 7, and comp. 
Teaching of Apostles, 16), but that it is 
‘ purgatorial ’ in the commonly received 
sense (Est.) is inconsistent with the 
reference of the épyoy, and with the 
whole tenor of the context. 

14. e& twos K.t.d.] ‘Jf any man’s 
work shall abide ;’ the issues of the 
Soxtacta and its results in each case. 
The future peve? (not péver, Rec.) with 
ei marks the issue as something re- 
garded purely conditional (‘ef cum 
indic. nihil significat praeter conditio- 
nem,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. U. p. 455); — 
if it shallso happen, be the cases many 
or few, likely to happen or the reverse; 


comp. Winer, Gr. § 41. 2, and notes oz 
Gala. 1: The construction of 
ei with a future often approximates 
very closely to that of édy with the 
subj., but still in most cases seems to 
present some slight shade of difference. 
Perhaps the following distinctions will 
be found in practice to be correct. 
When the hypoth. is connected simply 
with that which is predicated by the 
verb, —then é is used with pres. indic. ; 
when, however, the idea of futurity, or 
of the fossibility of that which is predi- 
cated, is also involved, —then, in the 
former case ef is used with the future 
indic.; in the latter, édy with the sub- 
junctive; see the comments and exx. 
in Kriiger, Sprach/. § 54. 9. 

proOdy Anprberar] ‘he shall receive 
wages, scil. for his work, as an up- 
building teacher. This sio6ds shall 
come from God (Meyer), as it is God’s 
oikodouh (ver. 9) on which the labor has 
been bestowed. The word pio@ds has 


here, in accordance with the context,’ 


not the more general and derivative 
meaning of ‘reward’ (Auth.), but its 
primary meaning of ‘merces;’ Phot. 
éyévov. The word is apparently con- 
nected with the Zend. mizdha (pay) 
and the Goth. mzzdé ; comp. Fick, Ver- 
gleichendes Worterb. Part I. p. 155. 

I5. Katakanoerat] ‘shall be burnt 
up, scil. by the wip which shall accom- 
pany the Lord’s presence (2 Thess. i. 
7) and try each man’s work (ver. 13); 
ov oloet TOU Tupds Thy piuny, Chrys. On 
the form katakahoeta (Attice, Kara- 
kavOqoerat, comp. Thomas Mag. p. 511. 
The same form occurs 2 Pet. iii. 10. 


HAP. III. 15, 16. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


79 


4 , fA) , Fc de 0 , 4 
€pyov Katakancetat, EnurwOynoetar, avtos d€ cwOnceTar, ovTwS 


\ e \ , 
O€ @s Ova mupos. 
Destroy not the temple 
lo 


God through your 
\contentiousness and vain-glory. 


{ypraOyoerar] ‘he will suffer loss ;’ 
simply and generally, —‘ detrimentum 
patieter,’ Vulg., Copt.; comp. Syr. 
The accus. micOdy is supplied by De- 
Wette, Meyer, (so also Aith., Theod.), 
in accordance with the prevailing struc- 
ture of the verb (comp. Matt. xvi. 26, 
Mark viii. 36, Phil. iii. 8, and exx. in 
Steph. Zhesaur. s.v., ed. Hase and 
Dind.), but here, as it would seem, un- 
necessarily; see Hofmann zz /oc. ‘It 
is not so much the loss of the pods 
that the Apostle wishes to mark, as 
the fact of loss and detriment generally, 
‘damno afficietur,’) Erasmus; comp. 
2 Cor. vii. 8. The contrasted relation 
with ow0joera is also thus better pre- 
served; comp. Chrys. zz oc. who para- 
phrases the word by yuurds elvar aoga- 
Aclas. avros St cwOqoerat] ‘ det 
he himself will be saved:’ though his 
work will be burnt up, and he himself 
left naked and lacking, he will still per- 
sonally be saved, as being one who 
had built on the only true foundation ; 
comp. Bengel. The reference of the 
verb o#(eo6a is here obviously to final 
salvation (cwTypia uxe@y, I Pet. i. 5), 
THs owrnplas atiwOnoetat, Theod. The 
interpretation of Chrys. and some of 
the Greek expositors (not, however, 
Theodorus, Theodoret, or Severian) 
aos TypnOncerat, scil. B®rTe év TH Tuph 
kataxaieoOa:, Theoph., is obviously out 
of all harmony with the context, and, 
as Meyer zz Joc. rightly observes, at 
variance both with the present re- 
stricted reference of mip, and with the 
prevailing meaning of oé{eo@a: in pas- 
sages such as the present ; comp. Rom. 
v.g. It is hardly necessary to add that 
the tense does not here impart any 


16 QOvx« oldate OTL 


\ fal b \ \ A 
vaos Ocod é€ote Kal TO 


Remember your heritage, 


idea of mere possibility (Theod.-Mops., 
Grot., al.: comp. Winer, Gr. § 40. 6), 
but, as above, simply states what, on 
the given hypothesis, will be the issue; 
comp. Wilke, het. § 80. a, p. 257. 
otras St ds 81a trupds] ‘yet so as through 
Jire, — as through surrounding and en- 
circling flames, ‘eritsicut adustus igne,’ 
f&th.; the structure will be cuasumed, 
but the builder will be saved, — yet 
only through the flames which are 
consuming that which he has built; 
comp. Wilke, Rez. § 26. a, p. 110. So 
Bengel, who rightly illustrates the 
tenor of the clause, though by a dif- 
ferent image, — ut mercator naufragus, 
amissa merce et lucro, servatur per 
undas.’ The o¥tws—ds specifies, with 
studied exactness, how, and how only, 
the escape will be effected; see ch. iv. 
I, ix. 26, Eph. v. 33, and comp. Winer, 
Gr. § 60. 5. It does not seem neces- 
sary, with Hofmann, al., to regard the 
mvp in this verse as different from that 
specified in ver. 13. In both cases it 
is the fire of the last day, alike testing 
and judicial, ‘ignis diei novissimi et 
judicii divini,’ Bengel. The whole 
passage, as Alford rightly suggests, 
should be compared with Mal. iii. 1 sqq. 
and iv. I sq. 


16-23. Warning against the destruc- 
tive nature of their contentions and the 
vain-glory from which they sprang. 

16. Ovw ot8are k.t.A.[ ‘Know ye not 
that ye are the temple of God ;’ appeal 
to a well-known, though forgotten, 
truth (Rom. vi. 16, 1 Cor. v. 6, vi. 16, 
ix. 13, 24; ‘subindicat de re comperta 
se apud eos loqui,’ Calvin), suggested 
by, and resting upon, the tenor of the 


80 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. III. 16, 17 


la) la] Lal lal \ \ a aA 
IIvetua tod Ocod oixed ev twiv; “el tus Tov vaov Tod Ocod 


foregoing declarations ; they were the 
oikodouy Oeod (ver. 9), — was such an 
oikodoun to be marred and destroyed by 
the wwpia and party spirit of sectarian 
teachers? The reference is thus, not 
to the subject which immediately pre- 
cedes (Hofmann, al.), still less to the 
subject of the incestuous person (Chrys., 
Theod.), but to the subject and tenor 
of the early part of the chapter. The 
verses immediately preceding _ are -2 
partial exransion of the latter part 
of ver.g: this being concluded, the 
Apostle appears to revert to his pri- 
mary and leading thought; ‘redit ad 
comparationem cceptam supra, a qua 
ad alia quedam, affinia tamen, deflex- 
erat,’ Grotius. So rightly De Wette, 
Meyer, and apparently the majority of 
modern expositors. 

vaos Ocod] Not ‘a temple of God’ 
(Copt., al.; compare Hofmann), but, 
in accordance with the tenor of the 
context, and of the Apostle’s im- 
agery elsewhere (Eph. ii. 21, comp. 
2 Cor. vi. 16),— ‘¢he temple of God;’ 
the idea not being that of several dif- 
ferent vaoi, but of one ideal temple, of 
which each individual Church is a type 
and adumbration. So rightly Origen, 
éopmev vads of mdytes eis: Exdorou quar 
AlOov twds bytos amd Tod vaod: comp. 
De Wette and Meyer zz /oc. In cases 
like the present grammatical consid- 
erations cannot be safely pressed. 
Though the article is not expressed, 
it may be deemed latent, either (a) be- 
cause @eov the associated gen. is anar- 
throus (comp. Winer, Gr. § 19. 1), or 
(4) because a predicative, auxiliary, or 
similar verb precedes (comp. Apollon. 
de Synt, i. 31, p. 64, ed. Bekk.), which, 
though not by any means necessarily 
involving the omission of the article, 
is certainly often followed, in general 
passages like the present, by an anar- 


{ 
throus though contextually definite 
substantive; see notes oz 1 Thess. iv. 
3. Where the definiteness of the su’,_ 
stantive is designed to be sect ally 
marked, then the article is inserter] , see 
exx. in Winer, Gv. § 18. 7. xal 7d 
IIvetpo «.t.d.] ‘and that ‘as a further 


and illustrative fact) 72 spirit of God 
dwelleth in you 5 ot necessarily here, 
‘in you’ as individuals (though that is 
a biesséd’and undoubted truth ; ; comp. 
Rom. viii. 9, 11, 26, 1 Cor. vi. 19, al. 
and see Rothe, Daogmatik, 1. § 69 sq., 
II. § 107), but, in accordance with the 
more general reference of the context, 
‘among you,’ ‘in your midst ;’ comp. 
Ezek. xxxvii. 27, kal @o7at 4 KatacKh- 
vwols gov ev aitois,—a passage not 
improbably in the thoughts of the 
Apostle while writing these words. 
The Holy Ghost is ever the indwelling 
Schechinah in the Christian Church; 
see Herzog, Zzcycl. Vol. xu. p. 478, 
and comp. Martensen, Dogm. § 183, p 
333 (Transl.). For a valuable sermon 
on this verse, see Barrow, ov the Creed. 
Serm. XxXxIv. Vol. VI. p. I sqq., and, 
on the work of the Holy Spirit, Dorner, 
Chr. Doctr. § 129, Vol. Iv. p. 159 sqq. 
On this adjunctive use of kat, by which 
a further fact is added to enhance or 
illustrate what precedes, comp. notes 
on ver. 5, and Winer Gr. § 53. 3. The 
order ev duty oixe? is adopted by Westc. 
and “ort (7reg. marg.), on the author- 
ity of BP and some good cursives, and 
is certainly worthy of consideration, as 
the more emphatic position of év syiy 
may have been here designed and 
original, but corrected by copyists. 

17. el tis K.T.A.] ‘ Lf any one destroys 
the temple of God,’ scil. by polluting it, 
defiling it, or in any way injuring it; 
comp. Deyling, Ods. Sacr. Vol. I. p. 
505 sq. The verb here has thus not 
merely an ethical (Severian, Bengel, 


Cuap. IIT. 17, 18. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


81 


Peiper, POcpet tovTov 6 Oeos: Oo yap vaos Tov Peod ayios EoTLD, 
EP hg ” 


Y Press erin 
OLTLVES EOTE UMELS. 


1 Mnoets éavtov e€atratatw: et tis Soxet 


\ L > Ora) bp] fal IA \ X f A 
copes civas ev viv ev TO aloe TOVTM, LwposS yevérOw, iva 


ainsecomp.n2 Cor. x3) Rev. xix. /2). 
but a physical and material sense. 
Outward and actual injury, however 
brought about, will be punished by 
what is no less real and outward: see 
below. PPepet] ‘well destroy, — 
emphatic (as its position shows), and 
predicative; ‘disperdet,’ Vulg., ‘de- 
struet,’ Syr., ‘perdet,’ Copt., amore 
Chrys. The exact meaning of the verb 
is slightly doubtful. It may here have 
a spiritual reference; but, in a sort of 
‘locus communis’ like the present, 
seems more naturally to maintain its 
primary and physical sense; comp. 
Grotius, zz loc. The whole verse 
obviously has a spiritual application ; 
the words, however, taken fer se have 
in both clauses only their physical 
meaning. Under any circumstances, 
such glosses as ‘gravissime puniet,’ 
Schleusn., are distinctly inadmissible. 
The reading avréy (Zachm.) is fairly 
supported, but very clearly inferior in 
external authority to the text. 

&ytos] ‘Zo/y,— and so not to be pro- 
faned without punishment falling on 
the profaner. The epithet (almost an 
‘epitheton solemne,’ comp. LXX, 
Psalm v. 7, x. 5, Hab. ii. 20) supplies 
the reason on which the declaration in 
the first member of the clause is based. 
The supplement 6 5€ memopyevpevos 
BeéBnaos (Chrys.), is in accordance with 
the view taken of those verses by most 
of the Greek expositors, but is incon- 
sistent with that adopted above. 
oitivés éore tpets] ‘the which [sc. holy] 
are ye,’ not ‘quod,’ Vulg., but ‘ quales,’ 
Maier,— the quantitative pronoun hay- 
. ing here its properand primary meaning; 
see Kriiger, Sprach/. 51. 8, and notes 
on Gal. iv. 23. The reasoning then 

II 


will be: God destroys the destroyer of 
His temple because the temple is holy ;. 
but ye are holy; therefore whosoever 
destroys you (‘ per schismata, ex mundi: 
sapientia,’ Bengel), him will God de- 
stroy. The pronoun may grammati- 
cally be referred to vads (see Winer, 
Gr. § 24. 3), but such a connection 
would simply be a reiteration of ver. 
16, and would also hint at a plurality 
of temples, unless the pronoun be re- 
ferred to the whole clause,—‘ which 
kind of holy temple are ye,-—a pos- 
sible, but certainly less simple, view of 
the passage than that which would 
simply limit the pronoun to the fore- 
going emphatic epithet. 

18. pydels eavrov «.7.A.] ‘ Let 20 man 
deceive himself, — by any false estimate 
of himself (r@ S5oxetv copds eivat): ex- 
hortation suggested by the implied 
reference to the false teachers in the 
preceding verse. The two prevailing 
errors were self-conceit (ver. 18-20), 
and party confidence (ver. 21 sq.); 
against both of these the Apostle now 
warns his readers. On the form 
etamatay, comp. notes oz I Zim. ii. 14. 
et tis Soxet K.t.A.] ‘2f any man 
thinks that he is wise ;’ not ‘ videtur,’ 
Vulg., Auth., but ‘putat,’ Syr. Copt., 
comp. Arm.,—the point of this ad- 
monitory exhortation being against the 
moral danger, not of a man seeming to 
be wise, but of his deeming that he 
was so; comp. Gal. vi. 3, and below, 
ch. viii. 2, xiv. 37, where the verb has 
the same subjective reference; see 
Bengel zz loc. év bpiv] ‘among 
you ;? not connected immediately with 
doxe? (Vulg., Syr., Copt., Arm.), but 
with copds elvat (Clarom.), it being 
among his fellows that his self-esteem 


’ 


82 


yévntas copes. 1%) yap copia 


lel a > / 
TO Ocd éotiv: yéypartar yap 


sought especially to show itself; 
SteoretAaro cimdév, év duty, Severian. 


The following words, év 76 alavi ToiTe, 
are then added to the whole clause, as 
defining the general sphere in which 
the supposed self-conceit was dis- 
played,— ‘in this world,’ and so under 
transitory and imperfect circumstances 
(comp. ch. i. 20, ii. 6 sq.) which mark 
the 8Sd«nois as additionally idle and 
mistaken. Two other constructions 
have been suggested,—(a) with codds 
(Grot. al.; comp. 1 Tim. vi. 17), and 
(2) with the words that follow (Chrys., 
al.; see Hofmann 27 Joc.); but the 
order of words is obviously against 
the former, and the natural antithesis 
(copds —pwpéds) and balance of clauses 
against the latter. On the meaning of 
aiéy, as partially distinguishable from 
xécos, see notes o7 Eph. i. 21. 

popos yevéo Ow] ‘let him become a fool,’ 
‘stultus fiat,’ Vulg.; let him get rid of 
his false conception of himself, and 
receive the preaching of Christ cru- 
cified (ch. i. 18, 23) in its simplicity, 
that so he may veritably become wise; 
Thy %w copiay atiunodtw, va Krhonrat 
Thy Oeiay, Theoph. 

19. H yap cola K.t.d.] ‘Hor the wis- 
dom of this world ts foolishness ;’ reason 
for the foregoing exhortation. Such 
wisdom ov pdvoy ovdév cuvTeAct, GAAG 
kat éeumodi¢e, Chrys. This copia rod 
KOcpou TovTou is that specified in ch. is 
20, the so-called wisdom and philosophy 
of the then non-Christian world. 
mapa To Oca] ‘22 the sight or judgment 
of God, ‘apud Deum,’ Vulg.; comp. 
Rom. ii. 13, xii. 16, Acts xxvi. 8,.al., 
and see Winer, Gr. § 48. d, Kriiger, 
Sprachl. § 68. 35. The general idea of 
nearness, closeness to (comp. Donalds. 
Cratyl. § 177, Pott, Etym. Forsch., 


1°*CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. III. 18, 19. 


Tov KOGuOUV TOUTOV wwpla Tapa 
‘O Spaccopevos Tovs coords év 


Part I. p. 463, ed. 2), seems to pass 
naturally into that of mental closeness, 
and thence of cognisance of that which 
is thus in juxta-position. On the local 
meaning of mapdé with the dative, see 
also notes on ch. xvi. 2, and on the 
subject generally (‘the wisdom of this 
world ’), a sermon by South, Servm. Vol. 
I. p. "13708daq- yéypatrra. yap] 
Confirmation of the foregoing clause 
from Scripture. The passage which 
follows is from Job v. 13. It differs 
from the LXX (6 katadapBdvev tods 
copots ev TH ppovnoe avTav), but ex- 
presses with equal, if not greater, verbal 
accuracy the meaning of the Hebrew 
pe sa 01230 AS), especially in re- 
gard "of the verb: see below. ) 
Spacadpevos] ‘he that catcheth or who 
catcheth,—an imperfect construction, 
the words in the original being part of 
asentence. Hence the participle; see 
Winer, Gr. § 45. 6, and comp. Heb. i. 
7. The passage confirms the truth of 
the foregoing declaration, by showing 
how truly such wisdom must be folly, 
when God uses it as a very snare (see 
Gesen. Zhesaur. s. v. “2>) to catch 
those who display it; rots oikelors SmAous 
avtovs xetpovmevos, Chrysostom. The 
meaning of the verb (very rare in the 
active) is ‘prehendere,’ ‘manu corripere’ 
(Hesychius, xpareiv: see the numerous 
examples in Steph. Zhesaur. s.v. Vol. 
II. p. 1671), and appears to to be con- 
nected with a stem dragh [hold fast]: 
see Fick, Vergleich. Woérterb. Part I. 
p- 369. It is commonly joined with 
the gen., but -occasionally (Herod. II. 
13; comp. Suid. s.v.) with the accusa- 
tive. mavoupyia] ‘ craftiness,’ 
‘astutia,’ Vulg., Syr., al. Meyer appo- 
sitely cites Plato, MWenex. p. 247, as 
marking the difference between mavoup- 


CuarP. ITI. 19-22. 


DeCORINTHEAN'S: 83 


fal al / A 
TH Tavoupyia aitav: ™ Kal madw Kupios ywowoKer tods dvado- 


lal a ¢ SSN / 
yiopovs TOY copay, OTL Elol paTaLoL. 


4A" Date unoets Kavyacbw 


lal la , 
év avOparros* Travta yap tuov éotw, ™ eite IladXos cite ’Arron- 


yla and aodia, viz. wacd te emorhun 
xwpiCouevn Sixacoovyns Kal tis &AAnS 
apeTis mavoupyia, ov aodia, paivera. 
The word is scarcely a ‘vox media’ 
(Grot.; ‘ Allbetriebsamkeit,’ Ewald) ; 
at any rate here, as elsewhere in the 
N.T., ‘in deteriorem partem accipitur,’ 
Schleusn.; see Luke xx. 23, 2 Cor. iv. 
2, xi. 3, Eph. iv. 14, and comp, Aristot. 
L£thic. Vi. 12, where it is said, in refer- 
ence to Sewdrns, &v uty 6 cxomds 7} Kadds, 
emawveTh eottv, dy 5¢ patdos tmavoupyla. 
20. Kal madw] ‘And again,’ —to 
cite another confirmatory passage: 
comp. Matt. iv. 7, Rom. xv. Io, 11, 
Heb. i. 5, ii. 13, x. 30, al. The quota- 
tion is from Ps. xciv. 11, where, how- 
ever, the LXX has dv@pdérwv. The 
context is still not the less in harmony 
with the present adaptation ; see Hof- 
mann 77 doc., who has briefly noticed 
and explained the original passage. 
Staroyro pods] ‘~easonings,’—not merely 
‘cogitationes,’ Vulg., the stronger sense 
being that in which the word is more 
commonly found, at any rate in the 
N.T. It is here the translation of the 
Hebrew minwmy (counsels, purposes) : 
comp. Wisd. vii. 20, and the numerous 
examples in Steph. 7hesaur. s.v. Vol. 
II. p. 1223, in some of which (Plato, 
Axioch. p. 367 A) it is associated with 
gpovtis; comp. also Suicer, Zhesaur. 
Sve VOleiap: 2795 cin Phil 14; 
1 Tim. ii. 8, the meaning is somewhat 
different, as it apparently takes its 
hue from the context; see notes 27 doc. 
21. “Oere] ‘ Consequently, so then ;’ 
admonition flowing from the general 
tenor of the statements of the pre- 
ceding section; ‘epilogus quo redit ad 
primam propositionem, non esse in 
magistris gloriandum,’ Est. The ref- 


erence may be to what immediately 
precedes (Meyer, see Phot. 7 /oc.), but 
seems here to involve a wider retro- 
spect; see Hofmann 77 /Zoc. On the 
present use of the particle with the 
imperative, in which the idea of logical 
consequence becomes merged in that 
of monition (‘itaque,’ Vulg.), see note 
on Phil. ii. 12, where this use of the 
particle is fully discussed. év 
avOpdrois] ‘among men,’ —shown to 
be thus weak and untrustworthy ; 
‘[nemo] letetur quod hunc aut illum 
doctorem habuerit,’ Grot.; see ch. iv. 
‘6, where the nature of the boasting is 
more exactly defined. 
yap tpov éoriy] ‘for all things are 
yours ;’ confirmation of the foregoing 
admonition, by showing how opposed 
all such sectarian boasting is to the 
universality of the Christian’s heritage ; 
comp. Rom. viii. 25 sq. As Meyer 
rightly observes, the apothegm of 
heathen philosophy (‘omnia sapientis 
esse’) is here presented under its 
higher and Christian aspects. The 
more specific application (‘non vos 
doctorum causa estis, sed illi vestri 
causa,’ Grotius) follows in the next 
verse. 

22. etre Ilatdos, «.t.A.] The names 
that they put forward in their sectarian 
boastings: comp. ch. i. 12. 

Kéopos] ‘(¢ie) world,’ —not in its eth- 
ical sense (ver. 19), but, as the whole 
broad tenor of this noble passage in- 
dicates, the world in its most inclusive 
sense, and as that which will hereafter 
be included in the general KAnpovouta ; 
comp. Rom. iv. 13, viii. 17, 1 Cor. vi. 
2. On the various meanings of the 
word, comp. notes oz Gal. iv. 3. and 
on the general sentiment conveyed by 


TAaVTO 


84 1 CORINTHIANS. 


CuaP. III. 22, 23, 


\ ” la] ” lg ” x ” 0 / ” b] a 
Aas elte Kndas, elite koopos elite wn ete Cavatos, eite eveoTaTa 


elte péAXNovTa, TravtTa vwuov, 8 tywels d€ Xpiotov, Xpiotos 4 
’ lad p ies is 


Ocod. 


22. mavta tuav]) So Lachm., Tisch., 


Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very 


greatly preponderating authority: Rec. adds éoriv. 


the verse, Herzog, Zzcycf. Vol. Il. p. 
680. 

elite Lot elte Sdvaros] ‘whether life or 
death ;’ inclusive specification in its 
widest aspect of the two {polar) con- 
ditions of everything in the kéopos. 
Even death itself has its aspects and 
purposes in this Kowh wpéAeia (Phot., 
comp. Theod.) of all things; comp. 
Phil. i. 21, Rom. xiv. 8. Any artificial 
limitation of the words (7 (wh, noty, 
tay didacKddwy, Theoph., al.) are clearly 
out of harmony with the tenor of this 
inclusive and almost impassioned ut- 
terance; comp. Rom. viii. 38. 

elre évertata elte pé\dovta] ‘whether 
things present, or things to come,’ sive 
preesentia sive futura,’ Vulg.: similarly 
inclusive specification of all things, 
whether as in being now, or to come 
into being hereafter. On the meaning 
of éveor, see notes o7 Gal.i. 4, and oz 
2 Thess. ii. 2. The specification is 
closed with the repeated mavta tuar, 
which in its turn suggests the still 
wider and partially contrasted clauses 
of the following verse. 

23. dpets 8& Xpiotod] ‘ But ye are 
Christ’s ;’? scil. belong to him, as ir 
avtovd KatacKkevacbevtes, Chrys., &s KTH- 
pata Kal moijuata, Phot.; slightly an- 
tithetical specification of the relation 
of the Spezs to Christ, —‘ but you, who 
thus have all things, belong to Christ, 
and not to men (comp. ver. 21) and 
their parties,’ — the 6¢ pointing, not to 
a latent wey in the preceding verse (‘all 
things indeed are thus yours,’ Riick.), 
but to the general tenor of the exhorta- 
tion, date pndels. «.7.A.; see Hofmann 
in loc., who has very carefully analyzed 


the drift of this concluding verse. 

Xprrrds S¢ Ocod] ‘but Christ is God's,’ 
— ds vids yvhaws, ek avTod yeyevynuevos, 
Theod., as airdv atriov exwy kata Td 
mateépa eivat, Chrys.; see ch. viii. 6, xi. 
3, and comp. Luke ix. 20. The deep 
truth contained in these words is not 
to be limited to our Lord’s human 
nature (‘haec subjectio ad Christi hu- 
manitatem refertur,’ Calvin, compare 
De Wette), but to be extended gene- 
rally to his divine nature and Sonship. 
The Eternal Son ‘is from the Father, as 
receiving His subsistence by generation 
from Him’ (Pearson, Creed, Vol. I. p. 
63, Oxf. 1820; comp. Jackson, Creed, 
Vol. vil. 222), and so bears to the 
Father a willing relation of holy sub- 
ordination in love (see especially Plitt, 
Lvang. Glaubenstl. Vol. 1. § 20, p. 142 
sq.), without any difference or ine- 
quality whatever in reference to His 
eternal and ever-blessed Godhead; see 
especially Pearson, /. c., the well-known 
section in Bull, Def. Fid. Nic. (Works, 
Vol. v. p. 685 sq.), and comp. Waterl. 
Works, Vol. 111. p. 486 (Oxf. 1823), 
Dorner, Chr. Doctr. § 28. 3, Vol. I. p. 
357 (Transl.), Martensen, Dagm. § 56, 
p- 109. (Transl.), Herzog, Real-Encycl. 
XVI. 484 sq. and the full, but not 
completely satisfactory, discussion of 
Rothe, Dogmatik, Part I. § 21, p. 117. 
This is the truth which Origen felt, 
but could not properly express; see 
Dorner, Pers. of Christ, Vol. I. p. 117 
sq. Chr. Doctr. § 92 6, 3, Vol. III. p. 209 
sq. (Transl.) The exact purpose 
of this concluding clause has been 
differently estimated. That there may 
be some passing reminiscence in this 


. 


Cuap. III. 23-IV. 1. 


Regard us in our true 
light as men bound to 
be faithful in our office. 
Pass no prematurejudg- 
ments. 


verse of ch. i. 12 may perhaps be con- 
ceded (see Meyer, z7 /oc.), but that the 
present clause has a sub-polemical 
reference to it seems very doubtful. 
The Apostle seems rather to be simply 
borne onward to the mention of the 
God and Father of all (‘ad quem ut 
finem omnia reducuntur,’ Est.) by the 
natural rise of his inspired and ascend- 
ing thoughts; compare De Wette and 
Hofmann zz /oc., and see Rabiger, /- 
halt, der Br. an d. Kor. p. 56. 


IV. 1-5. Zhe right pomt of view 
under which Christian teachers are to 
be regarded, and the duty of suspending 
all premature judgments. I. odtws] 
‘ Thus ;’ with reference to what follows, 
&s imnpéeras x.T-A., comp. ch. ii. 15, ix. 
26, Eph. iii. 33, al. Meyer, not with- 
out some plausibility, refers the particle 
to what has just preceded (‘ex pre- 
cedentibus repetit,’ Bengel; comp. 
Wilke, 2hetorik, § 33. e, p. 134, and 
notes oz Lph. v. 28), but as the last 
verse of the preceding chapter seems 
climactic, and as closing the paragraph, 
and as there is nothing in what pre- 
cedes that prepares the way for the two 
definitions (as twnp. kad oixov.) that here 
follow, the asyndeton and simpler 
reference is to be preferred; so Vulg., 
Copt., and apparently ®th., Arm., 
Theod., al., but in such cases, owing to 
a similar flexibility of meaning in the 
particles, the view taken by some of 
the Vv. can scarcely be pronounced 
certain. &vOpwtros] ‘a man ;’ scil. 
‘anyone,’ as ch. xi. 28, Gal. vi. 1, al. 
The use is not Hebraistic (Grot.), but 
is occasionally found in classical Greek 
(see exx. in Steph. Zhesaur. s. v. Vol. 
I. p. 786, ed. Hase and Dind.), and 
apparently in those cases where a 
‘sravior dicendi formula’ than the 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


85 


IV. Odtws judas rAoyilécPw avOpwros ws 
brnpétras Xpiotod Kal oikovopwovs pvotnpiov 


ordinary tts is required by the context. 
In the jas that follows, the context 
(ver. 6) seems to suggest a reference to 
the Apostle and Apollos ; comp. ch. iii. 
Ge tmnpétas] ‘ vz272sters,’ ‘min- 
istros,’ Vulg. The word is a Gat Aeydu. 
in St. Paul’s Epp., and is here used in 
its general sense (‘minister vel adjutor,’ 
Steph.), its distinction in meaning 
from didkovos being scarcely perceptible; 
comp. notes oz Eph. iii. 7. Any 
reference to the primary meaning of 
the word (‘subremiges,’ Wordsw.) 
seems completely out of the question. 
oixovépous K.T.A.] ‘stewards of God’s 
mysteries ;’ scil. of the deep truths of 
the Gospel dispensation, formerly un- 
revealed to man, but now made mani- 
fest by Christ Jesus; comp. Matt. xiii. 
11, Rom. xi. 25, al. These holy truths 
(yvoo8évra wvoThpia, Origen, ‘dogmata 
evangelica,’ Grotius) are dispensed by 
the teachers and preachers of the 
Gospel as the goods of an earthly lord 
are dispensed by the steward; see Luke 
xii. 42, and comp. Tit. i. 7, 1 Pet. iv. 
10, where, however, the use of the 
word is apparently rather wider and 
more general. On the meaning of the 
word pvorhpiov, see notes oz Eph. v. 
32, from which it would seem that 
reference to the sacraments (Osiand. ; 
comp. the priest’s commission in the 
Ordination Service) cannot here be 
safely maintained; see Maier zz /oc., 
and comp. Origen (Cramer, Cutev.), 
where the meaning of the expression . 
oikov. wvor.) is very fully illustrated. 

2. &8¢ Noumdv] ‘ Here furthermore, — 
in this position of drnpeoia and oikovopta; 
the particle not referring so much to 
physical (‘here on earth,’ Alf. ; comp. 
Heb. xiii. 14) as ethical locality (‘in 
hac rerum conditione,’ Schleusner; 
‘cum eo statu res nostre sint,’ Ellendt) ; 


86 1 CORINTHIANS. 


Ocod. 


evpeOy. 


Cuap. IV, 2, 3. 


9 + \ a > a ’ , 7 r 
@oe Aowtrov EnTretTar év Tois olKOVOm“OLS iva TLaTOS TIS 


82 \ / ? > , , 3 es ee J ead la > A A 
€wol O€ eis EAdxLoTOY eat iva bP Dud avaKpLOa 4) 


2. Ge] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly 


preponderating authority: Pec., 6 dé. 


The reading (yrTe?re is strongly 


supported (Westc. and “fort, marg.) but seems to be an old correction. 


comp. Rom. xiii. 10, 18, xiv. 12, xvii. 9. 
The adverbial adjective Aordy is used 
as in ch. i. 16 (see notes) to mark what 
remained to be added to the statement 
of the preceding clause, and has thus 
somewhat of a mixed inferential and 
consequential force (‘ proinde igitur’), 
especially at the beginning of sen- 
tences ; see notes o7 2 77m. iv. 8. 
{ynretrat év Tots oikov.] ‘ 7¢ 25 sought for, 
or required, in stewards ;’ it is looked 
for in their case; oikovduov yap Td 
Sioixeity TA eyxetpicbevTa Kad@s, Chrys. 
The exx. in Wetst. are hardly pertinent, 
as in them (yte?ra: appears rather to 
have its semi-philosophical meaning of 
‘in quzestione est;’ see exx. in Steph. 
Thesaur. s. v. Vol. tv. p. 34 (ed. Hase 
and Dind.). tva morés Tis 
ebpeOy] ‘that a man should be found 
faithful, ‘ut fidelis quis inveniatur,’ 
Vulg.; general object of the (Arnos, 
the ta having here, as the context 
seems to require, not its primary telic 
force (‘in order that,’ Meyer, Alf.), but 
that secondary force in which design 
and result are somewhat blended; see 
Winer, Gr. § 44.8 sq., Wilke, Rhetorih, 
§ 70. a, p. 253, notes 07 Pz/.i.0, 1 
Thess. vy. 4, and (for the three uses of 
iva in the N. T.) notes oz Eph. i. 17. 
The indefinite pronoun is here used in 
its not uncommon sense of ‘a man,’ sc. 
‘any man seeking such an office’ 
(‘einer,’ De Wette.; ‘ jedwelcher,’ 
Meyer) ; see Kriiger, Sprachl. § 51. 16. 
7, Matth. Gr. § 487.2. On the deriva- 
tion of this word and its connection 
with Sanscr. 42, Zend. czs, see Donald- 
son, Crat. § 149, Fick, Vergleich. 
Worterd. Part I. p. 42. 


3. mol 8 K.7.d.] ‘ But to me it is a 
very small matter ;’ contrasted refer- 
ence to his own case, the thought im- 
mediately flowing from the preceding 
(‘so you will have to inquire about 
me’) being left unexpressed; comp. 
DeWette zz loc. In the formula eis 
éAdx.cTov (‘pro minimo est,’ Vulgate), 
the preposition is not used Hebraisti- 
cally (Grotius), but simply marks the 
result (‘it amounts to’), or the condi- 
tion ultimately arrzved at; see Winer, 
§ 29. 2, and comp. Acts xix. 27, eis 
ovdéy Aoyio Ova. iva tp’ tpov 
avakpi0a] ‘that L should be judged of 
by you,’ the iva here again having its 
weakened telic force (see above, ver. 
2), and being no stronger in meaning 
than our simple ‘that;’ comp. Matt. 
X. 25, xviii. 6. The meaning in fact 
seems to lie between the simple infin. 
(comp. Osiand.) and the infin. with the 
article (infin. ‘of design’), which last 
form of expression is scarcely practi- 
cally distinguishable from {a (in its 
primary telic meaning) with the sub- 
junctive; comp. notes oz Phil. iii. 
10. avOpwrivyns tpépas] ‘ day of 
man’s judgment, —in antithesis to the 
day cf the Lord’s judgment alluded to 
in ver. 5; €¢ dvaxpiverOat weAAw, ev TH 
Tov Kuplov juepa avaxpiOjooua, Origen 
(Cramer, Catez.). It is really hardly 
necessary to add that this is neither a 
so-called ‘Cilicism’ (Jerome), nor a 
Hebraism (Schoettg.), but is simply a 
formula which derives its meaning very 
obviously from the context, and may 
possibly have been (see De Wette) a 
current expression in the time of St. 
Paul. The interpretation of Theodoret 


Cuap. IV. 3-5. 


1 CORINTHIANS 


87 


vTo avOpwrivns nuépas* GAN ovde euavTov avaxpivw: 4 ovdév 


ap €uavT® cvvolda, GAN ovK év TOUTw SediKalwuaLt* oO Se ava- 
afy P # c t 


, Ru , 5) 5 oO \ S a D 
KPLV@V KE uptos €OTLV. OTE {7) TPO Katpouv TL KPLVETE, 


(avOpwmrivny 5 tucpay exdreoe 7d Tis 
ploews dAvyéBiov) is mistaken, and that 
of Theoph. (im &AAou twos avOpeérov), 
insufficient. GAN’ odSe epavrdv 
avakp.] ‘Vay, J judge not even mine 
own self;’ ‘the @dAdA& marking the 
strong contrast (‘aliud jam hoc esse, 
de quo sumus dicturi,’ Klotz, Devar. 
Vol. 11. p. 2) between the passively 
expressed statement in the foregoing 
clause and the actively expressed state- 
ment in the present clause, and the 
ovdé emphasizing the pronoun, —‘ not 
even in a case where avdkpiois might 
certainly seem to be natural and per- 
missible ;’ comp. Theod., ti ydp, ono, 
Aéyw Tovs HAAous; eyo Ta Kat’ euavTdy 
axptBas 
€uauT@, ovte abgov eyavTdy amopjvat 


erioTamevos ovTE Kpivat 
avetouat. 

4. ot8tv yap ep. oivo8a] ‘for J am 
conscious of nothing against myself ;’ 
‘nullius rei mihi conscius sum.’ Syr. ; 
parenthetical confirmation, or rather 
elucidation (ydép being here mainly in 
its explanatory sense; see notes on 
Gal. ii. 6, and Winer, Gr. § 53. 8) of 
the foregoing declaration that he did 
not judge even himself (in his minis- 
terial and official relations); ‘non in 
mentem mihi venit me in ministerio 
mihi credito secus quicquam fecisse,’ 
Grot. The phrase éuaur@ ctvoida (comp. 
‘conscire mihi,’ Hor. £f7st. 1. 1. 61) is 
not wholly uncommon in earlier Greek 
(see Plato, Ago/. p. 21 B), and, in later 
Greek, is even of frequent occurrence; 
see the numerous examples cited by 
Wetzt. zz loc. GAN’ ovdK év 
Tovtw Sedux.] ‘howdeit, not in this, or 
hereby, am I justified ;’ contrasted, and 
so, rectifying statement in reference to 
the words immediately preceding, ‘non 


inde sequitur me plane ab omni culpa 
esse liberum,’ Grot. The negative is 
studiously separated from the verb 
with which it is, ‘quoad sensum,’ con- 
nected, so as to gain, by prominence 
in the sentence, the emphasis (‘sed non 
in hoc,’ Vulg.) which the preceding 
words naturally tend to call out. Meyer, 
resting on this order, presses the tech- 
nical meaning of ‘justified, scil. by 
faith: such a meaning, however, ap- 
pears completely alien to the context, 
in which moral circumstances and gen- 
eral accountableness seem alone before 
the mind of the inspired writer: comp. 
Hofmann and Osiander zz Joc. So 
rightly Estius (‘conscientia me non ac- 
cusans non certo me jzustum arguit’), 
Calvin, De Wette, and the majority 
of modern expositors. 6 8 
avakpiveyv pe] * bat he that judges me ;’ 
antithetical statement of who it is that 
does’really judge him; the 6¢ referring 
to the foregoing ovd€ éuavt., avaxp., and 
the ovdéy—dediue. being parenthetical. 
The reference throughout the passage, 
and especially in the clause oddev euavTtg 
kK.T.A., is not to an avdxpiois in regard 
of purely spiritual and subjective mat- 
ters, but, as the whole tenor of the 
context suggests, to the Apostle’s of- 
ficial and ministerial position; ‘note- 
mus FPaulum hic non de tot& sud vita, 
sed tantum de Apostolatus functione 
loqui,’ Calvin. Kipids éoriv] 
‘is the Lord ;’ scil. Christ, as shown by 
the immediate context; see ver. 5, éws 
hv &AOn 6 Kupwos. 

5. “Qore pi k.7.d.] ‘So then pass no 
judgment’ (uh kplvere kpiow tTwd, comp. 
John vii. 24) either on me or on others; 
consequence (‘itaque,’ Vulgate, —not 
‘proinde,’ Calvin, Beza, which less pre- 


88 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


([Cuap. IV. 5. 


€ws dv On 6 Kuptos, 6s kal hwtices Ta KpuTTAa TOU oKOTOUS 


fal lal \ / e bad 
kai havepwoer tas BovrAas THY Kapdiav* Kai TOTE 6 Emawwos 


, ls 4 > \ nr la 
yevnoetas ExdoT@ ato ToD Ocod 


cisely marks the blended consequence 
and retrospect included in the particle) 
immediately flowing from the preceding 
clause; ‘as it is Christ that judgeth 
me (‘dijudicat’), wait till He comes, 
and do not pass any judgment (‘fillet 
ein Urtheil,’ De Wette; comp. Syr. 
‘sitis judices’) on me before ‘the time.’ 
The exhortation is thus not merely 
general (see Est. zz /oc.), but special in 
its reference to the Apostle, und to 
the particular circumstances to which 
he is here alluding. On the force of 
éore with imperatival clauses, see notes 
on ch. iii. 21, and comp. Wilke, “et. 
§ 81, p. 265. mpd Ka.pod] ‘before 
the time,’ scil. the right and proper 
time, mpooykovtos Kcipov, Chrys.; comp. 
Matt. viii. 29. The exact meaning is 
added epexegetically in the words that 
follow. twos av UOy 6 Kipros] 
‘until the Lord shall have come ;° ex- 
planation of the mpd kaipot. The &p 
marks the coming, not in any way as 
contingent or doubtful, but as undefined 
as to the exact period of its happening 
(‘when the Lord shall come. — when- 
ever that may be’); comp. Matt. xvi. 
28, Mark ix. 2, Luke ix. 27, al., and 
see Herm. de Part. tw, p. 65 sq., Har- 
tung, Partik. Vol. Il. p. 291, Winer, 
Gr. § 42. 5. 

8s kal hotioe K.t.d.] ‘who shall also 
bring to light (‘lucem inferet in,’ Bengel) 
the hidden thing: of darkness :’ not only 
shall He come to judge, but in that 
coming and judging He shall also 
make manifest all that is secret and 
hidden ; d:atewe? 7d vedos, Chrys. The 
gen. Tod oxérous is apparently a so-called 
gen. of fossession,— the hidden things 
that are surrounded by and enveloped 
in darkness, ‘ tenebris implicita,’ Calvin, 


‘in tenebris gesta aut reposita,’ Est.; 
comp. (with a personal genitive) Rom. 
ii. £6; Hicclus. 1.30, al. Por exx Jof 
gwtifew with an accus. vez (eis as 
&yew, Suid., ets weoov &yew, Chrys.), see 
2 Tim. i. 10, Ecclus. xxiv. 32, and the 
good collection in Steph. Zhesaur. s. v. 
Vol. vill. p. 1208 (ed. Hase and 
Dindorf). Kal havepdoet k.T.A.] 
‘and shall make manifest the counsels 
of the hearts ;’ closer specification of 
the foregoing general expression : ‘sane 
cor hominis crypta est,’ Bengel; comp. 
Rom. ii. 16. The true character and 
motives, not only of the Apostle but 
of the other teachers, will thex be 
made manifest, and the due praise (6 
émaivos) will be awarded to each from 
God (emphatic; comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 
606. 3),— through Christ as the judge; 
comp. John v. 27, Acts x. 42, Rom. ii. 
16, al. The Corinthians, then, were to 
wait, and not to pass judgments which 
belonged only to 6 Tas rapdias épevyay, 
Chrys. : comp. Calvin and Hofmann zz 
loc. 6 trawos] ‘ the due or fitting 
praise ;’ comp. Rom. ii. 29, xiii. 3, I 
Pet. i. 7, ii. 14, al., in all which passages 
the usual and primary meaning of the 
word (not ‘merces,’ 4ith., but ‘laus,’ 
Vulg., Syr., Arm.) is distinctly to be 
maintained ; praise and approbation at 
the hands of men was that which was 
(comp. ch. ili. 21) sought after in 
Corinth ; what was humbly to be waited 
for was the ed dodAce dyad kal more 
(Matt. xxv. 21) from God. There is 
no necessity for regarding the term 
émawvos as here correlatively including 
its contrary (‘nominata laude relinqui- 
tur intelligendum vituperium,’ Est.; 
comp. Bengel, Olsh., al.), as the whole 
context turns only upon the former 


b 


Cuap. IV. 5. 6. 


The form in which I 
have spoken is to cor- 
rect party spirit and 
pride. The best correc- 
tive is to consider the 
lot of us the Apostles. 


€uavuTov Kal 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


89 


- 


STadta 5é, adeddpol, petecynudtica eis 


"Amrodrov bv’ twas, va év jyiv 


/ \ \ > \ a / vA ‘sh is 
pdOnre To Mi vrrép & yéyparrrat, iva pun els 


6. *AmoAA@v] So Tisch., Treg., Westc.and Hort, on preponderating authority : 


Rec., Lachm., ?AwonNA@. 
on clearly preponderating authority. 


&] So all the above-mentioned edd. and Rev., 


yéypamrat, tva] So all the 


critical edd. on very clearly preponderating authority: Rec. adds ppovety after 


yéeypamrat. 


idea; to each of God’s ministers, by 
His grace, there will be, not simply 
émawos, but 6 émawos, praise in such 
proportion and amount as is due to 
him; comp. 6 wicOds, Rom. iv. 4. 


6-13. The purpose of the reference to 
himself and Apollos, and to the Apostles 
generally. Tadra, S€] ‘ Vow these 
things, ‘these comments ;’ viz. from 
ch. iii. 5, where the reference to him- 
self and Apollos more distinctly begins, 
the 8€ (weraBatixéy, Hartung, Parti. 
Vol. I. p. 165): marking the transition 
to this and the concluding paragraphs 
of the present (the first) portion of the 
Epistle. To extend the reference of 
the tatra to the whole of this first 
portion or to all that has preceded 
from ch. i. 12 (Theoph., Bengel, al.) is 
not satisfactory; the natural reference 
is to the two paragraphs, the first 
terminating with Sore undels x.7.A. (ch. 
iii. 21), and the second with éare wh mpd 
kaipov (ver. 5), in which the relation of 
the Church to its teachers is more 
particularly specified ; see Hofmann zz 
loc. ( pererXnpdrioa K.7.A.] ‘7 
have transferred to (‘applied to the 
person of,’ Syr.) myselfand Apollos ;’ 
the aorist (not ‘ epistolary,’ Alf.) point- 
ing to the mention already made of 
himself and Apollos, in which the 
transference was made, and the eis 
marking the reference and (logical) 
direction of the action ; compare Winer, 
Gr. § 49. a. The verb occurs five 
times in the N.T., here, 2 Cor. xi. 13, 

12 


14, 15, and Phil. iii. 21, and in all in- 
volves the idea of a change or trans- 
ference of oxfua, the nature of the 
oxjua being defined by the context; 
see exx. in Steph. Zhesaur. s. v. Vol. v. 
p- 899 (ed. Hase). The oxjjua here is 
the general form in which the Apostle 
has expressed himself; this he changes 
by giving it a concrete reference to 
himself and Apollos. The view of 
Chrys., Phot., al. that the wererxnua- 
tiouds was the reference to himself 
and Apollos of what really referred to, 
and was meant to refer to, the party- 
leaders (ct én éxeivwy thy Adyov mpoh- 
yay ok by eéiavto Thy didpOwou, 
Chrysostom; see Phot. ap. Cramer, 
Caten.), is inconsistent with the ap- 
parently limited reference of taira (see 
above), and out of harmony with the 
general tenor of the context. 

On the form of the accus. ’AmoAAdy, or 
(as Lachm. with some amount of good 
critical authority) "AmoAAd, see Winer, 
Gr. § 8. 2, Kiihner, Gr. 124. SU 
bpas] ‘for your sakes,—not our own; 
ovx iva mept TavAov kal’AmoAAY TadTa 
yivéokepev pdvov, Origen. How it was 
so, is explained in the clause that 
follows. Wa év tiv «t.d.] ‘that 
ine us (and by us) ye may learn ;? purpose 
of the perecxnuatiouds, and further ex- 
planation of the preceding 6? dnyas. 
The prep. év here, as not uncommonly, 
serves to mark the suéstratum of the 
action; see notes oz Gal. i. 24, and 
Winer, Gr.-§ 48. a. vo M2 irép 
& yéypamrar] ‘the (Zesson), Gonot beyond 


90 1 CORINTHIANS. 


e ‘ a Bi Vf, lal \ lal eeu 
vmep Tod évos hvawiobe Kata Tov éTéEpov. 


the things that are written ;’ substan- 
tival object of the udénre; the 7é giving 
the character of a neuter substantive 
to the words that follow it (Kiihner. 
Gr. § 461. 7), and the emphatic ph 
carrying with it a latent and easily sup- 
plied verb; see Klotz, Devar. Vol It. p. 
667, Winer, Gr. § 64. 4, Buttm. Gramm. 
NV. TJ. p. 338, but observe that it 
seems more in accordance with this 
use of un to consider the present 
rather a case of what is called ‘ aposi- 
opesis’ than of ellipse,—7¢. e. that an 
imper. (comp. ‘ne quid nimis’) rather 
than an infin. (Winer) is to be supplied ; 
comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 598. The yéypor- 
tat has received several different 
references,—to the commands of cur 
Lord in the N.T. (Chrys., al.) ; to the 
foregoing directions in this Epistle 
(Neander, al.); to a generally pre- 
scribed principle (Hofmann, comp. 
Pind. Vem. vi. 7); to the pecepts of 
the (O.T.) Scripture generally, some of 
which (e.g. Jer. ix. 23) have been al- 
ready cited (ch. i. 31). Of these the 
Jast is, almost obviously, the most 
probable; the impersonal yéyparrat 
being nearly always thus used with 
reference to Scripture (see Grot. 72 
Zoc.), and Scripture having already been 
thus referred to three or four times in 
this Epistle; see above, ch. i. 19, 31, 
ii. 8, iil. 19. tva pa) «.7.A.] ‘that 
ye be not puffed up, one in favor of the 
one against the other, scil. ‘one in fa- 
vor of the one teacher whom he may 
choose, as against the other teacher 
whom he may reject;’ second and 
derivative purpose resulting from the 
first, —the avoidance of sectarian dis- 
sensions; ‘eis dtp tov évds, definitio 
secte, ubi singuli singulos mirantur 
et sequuntur,’ Bengel. The toi évds 
seems naturally to specify the eis as 
the head of a party (Reiche ; ‘ discipu- 


Cuap. IV. 6. 
“ris yap o¢ Sia 


lus pro magistro qualicunque,’ Est. 
comp. Theod.), just as Tod Er€pov seems 
to mark the head of the party to which 
the eis in question (see ch. i. 12) is 
opposed ; the two teachers mentioned 
in the verse being thus indicated with- 
out being again more particularly spec- 
ified. Some intepreters (Meyer, al.) 
pressing the close connection of the 
eis bwep Tov évds, and its separation by 
the verb from the kata Tov érépou, re- 
gard it as in fact equivalent to bmép 
GAAHAwy (see 1 Thess. v. 11, and notes 
in loc. and comp. Ecclus. xlii. 24, 
1 Macc. xiii. 28), the rod érepov thus 
referring toa third party, against whom 
the @vorotoOa of the cis trép rod évds, 
(‘one on behalf of one, and another of 
another’) was directed. Thisis certainly 
grammatically admissible, and certainly 
serves to accentuate the individualisms 
of. faction; but it is deficient in sim- 
plicity and directness, and obscures 
the significance of the tod évés and tod 
étépov, and the clearness of their an- 
tithesis. It is remarkable that Winer 
(Gr. § 47. 1) should have here taken 
émép in its semi-local meaning ‘above,’ 
such a meaning (with the gen.) not 
being found in the N.T., and in this 
passage marring the obvious antithesis 
between imép and card; comp. Mark 
ix. 40, Rom. viii. 31. The 
only remaining difficulty is the mood 
of the verb gvawvcbe. This may be 
either an incorrectly contracted subj. 
(Bengel; see Reiche, p. 152), or a sole- 
cistically used indicative. The former 
is perhaps slightly more probable; 
comp. Gal. iv. 17, and see notes 77 doc. 
Meyer urges strongly that ta is here 
local (‘wobei,’ ‘in which case’), but 
the plain sequence of thought, and, it 
may be added, all the ancient Vv. and 
expositors are in favor of the easier 
and (especially with a preceding ia) 


Cuap. IV. 7, 8. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 91 


kpiver; ti de eyers 6 ovK eraBes; ef S€ Kal édaBes, Ti Kav- 


Kaoa, ws un AaBov ; °Hdn KeKxopecpévar éoré, On errAOUTHGATE, 


more usual telic force; comp. Rom. 
vil. 13, Gal. iii. 14, Eph, vi. 19, 20, and 
notes oz Gal. iv. 5, where the conjugate 
tva is similarly used. 

7. tls yap oe Staxplve] ‘ For who is 
it that distinguisheth thee’ (only one of 
the duets above alluded to: aé rdv Bov- 
Aduevov amd Tovde Kadrcicba  Tdvde 
kaTaAiumavelv, Severian), i.e. draws any 
distinction between thee and any one 
else?’ confirmation of the justice and 
reasonableness of the ta ph x.7.A. 
First, the didkpiots was a_ self-made 
one; and, secondly, any quality or 
natural gift which, for the moment, 
might seem to justify it, was vouch- 
safed and received from above: ovdév 
otkobey €xets GAAG Tapa TOD Ocod AaBar, 
Chrys. There is some little doubt as 
to the meaning of Siakpiver. It may 
have, through the context, the deriva- 
tive sense ‘eximze distinguit’ Bengel; 
eynpicato &tioy tov emoavetcOa, The- 
oph.), but is more naturally taken in 
its simple and indeterminate meaning, 
‘discernit,’ Vulgate, Syr. (‘examinat,’ 
fEth., Arm.); comp. Herod. III. 39, 
Hye Tavtas, Siaxpivwv ovdeva. 
wl & exes] ‘and what hast thou?’ 
second confirmatory reason for the 
tva wh k.7T-A., the 6€ in accordance with 
its primitive meaning (Donalds. Crat. 
§ 155) adding a second emphatic ques- 
tion (Kiihner, Gr. § 526. 2, who notices 
the sort of medial position 5¢ some- 
times holds between kai and aAAd) with 
just that tinge of opposition which a 
new question brings with it ; see Winer, 
Gr. § 53. 10. 2, comp. Klotz, Devar. 
Vol. 11. p. 361. cl Se kal aes 
K.T.A.] ‘ dat if thou didst receive it, why 
boastest thou as tf thou receivedst it not?’ 
antithetic concession, ef «af marking 
‘rem ita esse, ut dicitur’ (Herm. Viger, 
No. 307), and «ai coalescing with and 


adding emphasis to the ¢AaBes; comp. 
2 Cor. iv. 3, and, on the distinction 
between ef cai and kat ei, notes oz Phil. 
ii. 17; see also Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. 
p- 519, Kihner, Gr. § 578. 2. 

8. 45 Kexoperpévor eoré] ‘ Already 
are ye filled full:’ ‘ironia longia et 
gravis’ (Grot.), perhaps suggested by 
the €daBes and AaBav, —‘if thou re- 
ceivedst, did I say; Oh yes! ye are 
filled full, and that too even now be- 
fore the BaoiAcia is come; ottw TaXEws 
mpos To TéAos epOdcate, Chrys. To 
make this and the following clauses 
interrogative (Westc. and Hort) mars 
the irony of the assumed concession 
and the natural transition in such a 
passage from sharp question to the 
half answer of derisive assertion. It 
is somewhat doubtful as to what this 
and the climactic words émAourhoate 
and éBaowwWevoate (‘gradatio: saturz, 
divites, reges, Bengel) are specially to 
be referred. They may refer to self- 
supposed spiritual progress (rdv mAoDd- 
Tov TayTa Tis Te yyooews Kal TaY Kapio- 
udtwv, Theoph.), but, as the concluding 
portion of the verse seems to suggest, 
more naturally to point to the Mes- 
sianic kingdom, which these Corin- 
thians regarded as now verily their 
own; comp. Origen 727 J/oc. (Cramer, 
Caten.). 45y éwAoutHoate] ‘ a/- 
ready are ye rich, ‘divites facti estis’ 
Vulg.; the tense comp. éBaciAcvoare 
below) marking the entrance into the 
state (see especially Kriiger, Sprachi. 
§ 53- 5. 1), and being, as usual, simply 
silent as to the permanence of it; 
contrast Hos. xii. 8, mwemAo’ryKa, €v- 
pnka avotuxhv éeuavt@, where the con- 
tinuance is specified: see Kiihner, Gr. 
§9386.)"5,) Hritz.) de Aer Mzeapal7e 
Donalds. Gr. § 427. aa. The assertion 
that wAouvteiy and BactAevew are here 


99 1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. IV. 8, 9. 


xopis nuav éBacievoate: Kal Gdedov ye EBacievoaTe, iva 


\ e tal (Be if. 
Kal nweis viv ocvvBacirevowper. 


%don@ yap, 0 Oeds mas 


Q. 50xn@ yap] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg. Rev. Westc. and Hort, on greatly 
preponderating authority: Rec. adds 8rt. 


simply inchoative (Maier) is very clearly 
incorrect: comp. Wilke, Ret. p. 42. 
Xopls juov eBac.] ‘ve have become 
kings without us,—without us (em- 
phatic), scil. Apollos and me, without 
whom ye never would have become 
Christians at all; 17d oddpa avdnrov 
deixvutat, Chrys. On the union of the 
aorist with a particle involving present 
time, see notes oz Col. i. 21. 

kal deddv ye eBaoidedoate] ‘Aye, 
would that ye did reign ;’ ‘in spite of 
this reigning without us, I wish that 
verily ye did reign,’ the yé sharpening 
and giving emphasis to the dpeAor : see 
Hartung, Partik. Vol. Il. p. 372 sq-, 
Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 281, and, on 
the two seemingly opposed meanings 
of yé (‘aut ut minimum, aut ut 
maximum commemoretur;’ but see 
also Kriiger, Sprach/. § 69. 15), the 
comments and examples in Herm. 
Wacer,.9 No. (2065 b, “where)) this 
particle is very carefully illustrated. 
The primary sense is that of enhance- 
ment of an zz¢ensive character (just as 
mép usually marks the enhancement of 
an extensive character), and so, gen- 
erally, emphasis and accentuation; the 
secondary and more derivative sense is 
that of segregation from all else (Baum- 
lein, Partik. s. v. p. 54 sq.; where, how- 
ever, this seems regarded as the pri- 
mary conception), and so restriction 
and specification; see Kiihner, G7. § 
511, and comp. Donalds. Craz. § 203. 
On the use of épeAov, which in the N. T. 
is purely that of a particle, see notes oz 
Gal. v. 12. tv Kal tpets K.T.A.] 
‘that we also might reign with you:’ 
subjunctive-—as the purpose is re- 
garded as dependent on a state which, 


as far as the wish went, had been 
already entered into, and is now re- 
garded as present ; see Winer, G7. § 41. 
1. b, and the good notes of Stallbaum 
on Plato, Crzt. 43 B, compared with 
note on Afol. 17 A. In such cases, as 
Stallb. rightly says, ‘mentis cogitatio a 
preterito tempore ad prasens deduci- 
tur :’ see also Herm, de Emend. Gram. 
p- 212, and the good collection of exx. 
in Kihner, Gr. § 553. 3 b. If the 
imperf. or aorist zzdéc. had been used 
(as usually in cases of what is 
impossible or unattainable, Kriger, 
Sprachl. § 54. 8. 8, Kiihner, Gr. 553. 
7; compare Plato, Crit. § 44 D), the 
purpose would then have been con- 
nected with the past (‘that we might 
then be reigning’ or, if aor., ‘that we 
might have reigned’) and the thought 
would have become retrospective: 
comp. Donalds. Gr. § 614, and the 
clear remarks and distinctions of 
Schmalfield, Gr. Verd. § 143, p. 295. 

g. Soca yap] ‘Zor J suppose, me- 
thinks ;’ confirmation of the preceding 
wish and its purpose ; ‘I may well wish 
that we were reigning with you, for 
our real state is strikingly the reverse.’ 
the verb Sox@ (ov Siotayuod GAA’ HOous 
éugarixdy, Phot.) serves to mark ‘sensu 
quodam demisso’ (comp. Bengel), and 
not without some tinge of irony (Grot.), 
the inference which the facts of the 
case appeared to suggest ; ds épa, nat, 
kat e& Gv iuets pare, Chrys. ; comp. ch. 
vii. 40. For exx. of this absolute use 
of S0xa, see Kiihner, Gr. § 548. 1. 
pas Tos amoot.| ‘ws the Apostles’— 
who might justly claim such a very 
different position. The reference is 
here general (himself and the other 


a 


Cuap. IV. 9. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 93 


\ 5) r 2 t ata, e 5) / e 
TOUS @TOCTONOUS EOXATOUS amédevEev, @S émrlavatious, OTt 


Oéatpov éyevnOnuey TO KOTUM Kai ayyéAols Kal avOpwrraL 
P YEVHNON G BG vy p S. 


Apostles), but passes, not unnaturally, 
ver. II sq., into a reference to himself, 
and to the verifying circumstances of 
his own case. éoxarovs amedeécv] 
‘set forth as last ;’ ‘extremos et secun- 
dum szculum vilissimos,’ Estius. The 
éoxatous, it need hardly be said, is a 
predicate dependent on the améde:ter, 
and specifying what the Apostles were 
shown to be,—‘ collocati infimo loco,’ 
Grot.; compare Aristot. Pol. Ill. 4, 
érxaros Siuos, and Mark ix. 35. To 
connect it with a&mroordAous as referring 
to date of calling (see Calvin, al.), or 
with ém@avariovs (‘last appointed to 
death,’ Stanley), is not grammatically 
defensible. as émulavarious] ‘as 
sentenced to death,—men whose cir- 
cumstances make them seem to be 
such; katadixous, mpbs TOav arovobat 
mapeckevaruevous, Theoph. The inter- 
pretation of Tertullian, de Pudic. cap. 
14. ‘ veluti bestiarios,’ certainly derives 
some support from what follows, but 
is, perhaps, ‘argutius quam verius dic- 
tum.’ The form isa dak Aeyou. in the 
N. T., and only occasionally found in 
later writers ;see exx.in Steph, Zhesaur. 
s. v. Vol. IIL. p. 1597 (ed. Hase). 

bru Oedrpov éyevy.] ‘for, or seeing that, 
we are become a spectacle ;’ explanation 
of the amddeitev &s émiBavatious, the dre 
having here, as often in the N. T., 
more of an explanatory (Donalds. Gr. 
§ 549) than of a purely causal meaning; 
see Schmalfeld, Syzt. § 165, 169 4, 
where this sort of transitional form of 
the expositive sentence is briefly but 
clearly noticed; comp. also exx. in 
Kiihner, Gr. § 569. 2. As a general 
rule, yép confirms, 87: gives the reason ; 
but in translation the more distinctly 
causal rendering (‘because’) will often 
be found inadmissible; comp. Bain, 
Engl. Gr. p. 69. To take the particle 


as a relative (6 71, and as connected 
with @¢arpov, Hofmann), is harsh and 
unnatural. The verbal subst. @éarpov 
is here, as Meyer rightly observes, 
nearly equivalent to @éa or @éaua (He- 
sych.; els @ewplay, Theodoret), as in 
ABSch ale Socr. Uli 120) ales so 
rightly Theoph., @e@vrat 
&vOpwmrot udvot, GAAG Kab wyyeAot ; Comp. 
Heb. x. 33. On the meaning of 
eyern@nuev, which is probably only 
passive in form, see notes oz Zph. 
ili. 7. kal dyyéAots Kal avOpdrrois] 
‘both to angels and to men;’ speci- 
fication of the preceding kéou, the 
two anarthrous substantives (comp. 
Winer, Gr. § 19. 3. obs.) defining the 
general term; ‘exponit Apostolus divi- 
dendo, quod dixerat mundo, Estius. 
The &yyedor here specified are probably 
good angels (oi &yyedot Tod Ocod, Origen; 
ai kyw Tay ayyéAwy Takes, Phot.), not, 
of both kinds (Aquin., Bengel),— the 
remark of Meyer appearing to be just, 
that when &yyeAo is used in reference 
to evil angels, there is always some- 
thing in the context that indicates the 
limitation: comp. Matt. xxv. 41, 2 
Cor. xii. 7, 2 Pet. ii. 4, Jude 6, and see 
Meyer 2 doc. and oz Rom. viii. 38. 
On the uses of the word in the N. T., 
see the good article in Cremer, 476/.- 
Theol. Wérterb. p. 18 sq. (comp. Rothe, 
Dogmatik, Part I. § 54, Hofmann, 
Schriftbeweis, Vol. 1. p. 274 sq.): and, 
on the question of the reality of the 
existence of these blessed beings (the 
association with dv@p. is itself an evi- 
dence of the distinctness of the 
Apostle’s belief), see Philippi. A7zrc/. 
Glaubenslehve, Part 11. p. 287 sq., Van 
Costerzee, Chr. Dogmatics, § 57, p. 310 
sq., the comprehensive article of 
Bohmer, in Herzog, Real-Encycl. Vol. 
Iv. p. 18 sq., and especially Bp. Bull, 


nuds ovK 


94 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. IV. 10, 11. 


"npets popol Sia Xprorov, tyeis Se ppovimor ev Xpuord* *hyeis 


>’ a € tal \ > / 
aoOeveis, ipeis 5é ioyupol: 


vuets EvdoEo, nucis Se aTipor. 


Daypt Ths pte dpas Kal mewapev Kal Sipawev Kat yuprirevojev 


II. yuurrredouev] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very 
greatly preponderating authority: Rec. yuuvnredouer. 


Serm. XI. p. 194 sq. (Eng. Works), and 
Dorner, Chr. Doctr. §§ 44, 45, Vol. 11. 
p: 96 sqq. (Transl.). 

Io. Hpeis] ‘ We,’ not without some 
degree of ironical emphasis (apod-ye: Tov 
Adyov Kar’ cipwyelavy, Chrys.); we the 
lowly and foolish, in contrast with yoz 
the wise and illuminated: ‘hzc an- 
tithesis tota est ironica et plena aculeis,’ 
Calvin 2 Joc. Sia Xprorrdv] 
‘on account of Christ, ‘propter Chris- 
tum,’ Vulg. It was owing to preaching 
Christ, even as Christ himself sent the 
Apostle forth to preach, —ovx év cola 
Adyou (ch. i. 17), that St. Paul and his 
fellow-preachers studiedly were, so far 
as this world’s wisdom was concerned, 
pwpot, —‘um Christi Willen beschrin- 
ken wir uns nur auf Christus,’ Meyer; 
see ch. ii. 2. év Xpurra] ‘27 
Christ,” and in your connection with 
Him; ‘Christum et prudentiam carnis 
simul miscere volebant,’ Calvin. In 
both clauses the auxiliary verb (éopéy, 
éoré) is all that has to be supplied; 
the context clearly points to what each 
party was, not merely what they ap- 
peared to be. ao Beveis—ioryx vpol] 
‘weak—strong ;’ weak,—not merely 
in reference to sufferings and trials 
(Theoph.), nor, even exclusively, in 
reference to special extraneous aids, 
such as eloquence and wisdom (De- 
Wette), but simply and generally : they 
were weak in regard of all human 
powers and agencies, and relied simply 
on Christ and His word; see ch. ii. 3, 
and comp. 2 Cor. x. 10, xiii. 3sq. The 
Corinthians, on the contrary, were 
strong (mpowyet Tov Adyor Kar’ cipwrelay, 
Chrys.) —in pretension, self-assump- 


b 


tion, and the estimation of their fol- 
lowers. The last idea is more dis- 
tinctly brought out in the évdogu (‘high 
in honor,’ ‘ vulthagai,’ Goth., — almost 
‘glorified,’ comp. Syr.) that follows, 
the antithesis being between the glory 
that the one received and the dishonor 
that was the lot of the other; evdotds 
éoTw 6 éxfonuos, Ammon, de Diff. Voc. 
S.v.; comp. I Sam. ix. 6, xxii. 14, Isa. 
xxiii. 8, Ecclus. xi. 6, al. 

II. &Xpe tis dpte spas[ ‘UP fo this 
present hour ;’ not merely ‘ generaliter 
dictum’ ( Alf.), but definitely specifying 
the state in which St. Paul himself or 
others actually may have been at the 
time of writing; comp. ews &pru. ver. 13. 
In the preceding clause the order of the 
pronouns is changed that the transition 
to the specification of the circumstances 
of the juets might follow more easily. 
These he specifies under the three 
heads of bodily sufferings (& pi—xep- 
civ), ill treatment and their conduct 
towards those who ill-treated them 
Ao.dop.—apakadodmev), and, lastly, gen- 
eral contempt and disesteem (s repixad. 
éws &pti); comp. Hofmann zz Joc. ; 
sim. Aquinas. On the distinction be- 
tween & xpi and peéxpi, see notes on 
1 Zim. ii. 9. yupvirevopmev, ‘are 
without needful clothing, ‘have not 
enough to cover ourselves with ;’ comp. 
2 Cor. xi. 27, év Woxe Kal yupydrnrt. 
The use of the word in the current 
Greek of the time (so in Dio Cass. and 
Plutarch) appears to have been con- 
fined to yuuvdrns in respect of armor; 
‘velitem agere,’ Grot. The subst. 
ynuvntia (‘levis armatura,’ Livy; abstr. 
for concr.) is found in Thucyd. //7s¢. 


Cuap. IV. 11-13. 1 CORINTHIANS. 95 


\ / 4) x ? a 12 \ lal 5) , 
Kat Koradifoucla Kal aotatodmev @ Kat KoTimpev Eépyalopevor 
a ES/ Pcs were , aN, ‘ 13 § 4 } j 
TALS LOLALS XEPow Ob Opoupevot EVAOYOULED, b@KO{LEVOL aveyxo- 


13. dvapnuoduevar] So Zisch., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on slightly preponder- 
ating authority: Rec., Lachm., Treg., BAaopnuoduevat. The evidence is nearly 
evenly balanced. The internal argument, however, that the less usual form 
(Sucp.) was more likely to have been changed into the more usual (BAac®.) than 
Baaod. changed as too strong a word for the context (for see ch. x. 30, Rom. 


iii. 8, Tit. iii. 2, al.), seems perfectly valid, and strengthens the decision. 


VII. 37. Kodadi{opeda] ‘are 
buffeted, ‘struck with fists;’see Matt. 
xxvi. 67, Mark xiv. 65, 2 Cor xii. 7; 
1 Pet. ii. 20: ‘colaphis cedimur, — 
velut servi: adeo non regnamus,’ Beng. 
This, however, may be a little too re- 
fined; ‘contumeliosa tractatio, maxime 
que sit inflictis verberibus’ (Est.), or 
rough treatment generally, is probably 
all that is here implied by the word. 
aoratotpev] ‘have no abiding place,’ 
‘domum perstantem non habemus,’ 
Syr., ‘incertis sedibus erramus,’ Vulg. 
‘inquieti facti sumus,’ Armen.; éAauvé- 
feOu yap, Chrys. The word (a &aé. 
Aeydu. in N. T.) marks inferentially the 
persecuted (aoTarotuer> touréott SiwKd- 
peOa, Phavor.), and so unresting (a0Ta- 
Tovons Xela THs Oaddooes, Appian) 
nature of the life of St. Paul and the 
Apostles. 

12. Kal Komidpev K.T.A.] Sand coil 
working with our own hands;’ the 
participial clause defining the manner 
and the accompaniments of the «émos ; 
comp. Col. i. 28, ii. 5, 13, al., and on 
the use generally of the appended par- 
ticiple, the brief but clear comments 
of Scheuerlein, Sytax, § 46. 2, p. 485. 
Here the Apostle primarily specifies 
his own case (Acts xviii. 3, xx. 34, 
1 Thess. ii. 9, 2 Thess. iii. 8), but, very 
probably, includes in it that of others. 
On the meaning of komdw, which al- 
ways seems to involve some associated 
idea of toilsomeness or suffering, comp. 
notes oz 1 Zim.iv.9, and ox 1 Thess. 
ii. 9. AovSopodpevor edrAoyodpev] 


‘being reviled we bless ;? second aspect 


(see above) of the position and circum- 
stances of St. Paul and his brother 
Apostles ; Seixyvairhy eoxdtny edt éAciav, 
Theodoret. Not only were they with- 
out honor, persecuted, and toil worn, 
and endurers of all in patience, but 
they even requited it with blessing 
and gentle words; ‘id mundus spretum 
putat,’ Bengel. Our Lord’s command 
(Matt. v. 44, Luke vi. 27) may not here 
be definitely referred to (Meyer), but 
it may well have been in the Apostle’s 
thoughts, and its tenor was certainly 
acted on. On the subject generally, 
see Rothe, Zheol. Ethik, § 1055, Vol. 
IV. p. 333 (ed. 2), and comp. § 936, Vol. 
IV. p. 71 sq. 

13. Svodnpotpevor tapaxadotpev] 
‘being defamed we intreat ;’ nriws Tots 
SiaBdAAovor Siurcyducba, Theod., mpao- 
Tépois Adyois Kal wadraKTiKots GuetBducba, 
Theoph. The meaning of tapakaaAeciy is 
here obviously not ‘hortari’ (Stanley), 
—which would be inappropriate, nor 
‘precari (pro ipsis),’ Syr., comp. Grot., 
— which, though not without example 
(Josephus, Azz7g. vi. 2. 2), is contrary 
to St. Paul’s usage, — but ‘obsecrare’ 
(Vulg., or more fully, ‘humiliter loqui 
obsecrantium more,’ Est., ‘ gute Worte 


‘geben,’ Grimm. On the varied mean- 


ings of this frequently used word (St. 
Paul uses it more than fifty times) see 
notes on ch. i. 10, and oz ph. iv. I. 
As Grimm. (Ze. s.v.) rightly observes, 
the leading and general meaning is 
‘alloquio adire aliquem,’ but as this 


96 1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. IV. 13, 14. 


beGa, Svodnuovpevor mapaxadoduev’ ws mepikabdpyata Tod 


Koopou éyevnOnuev, TavT@v Tepipnua, Ews apTt. 


This is spoken as by a 
father whose ways ye 
ought to imitate. Iam 
certainly coming. Is it 
to be in mildness or the contrary ? 


1 OvK évtpétr@v vuas ypadw tadta, avr 


¢ , > \ 6 Anh ee SN \ 
@S TEKVA (LOU AYATTNTA VOUVVUETWY E€avV yap 


14. vovBerav] So Tisch., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on slightly preponderating 


authority: Rec., Lachm., Treg., vovbeta. 


The critical balance is nearly exactly 


the same as in ver. 13, and the probability of a correction on the part of the 


transcriber very nearly as great. 


‘alloquium’ may be hortatory, con- 
solatory, precatory, or otherwise, the 
context alone can settle the exact 
shade of meaning in any given pas- 
sage; see notes o7 I Thess. v. Il. 

as tmepuxaldppata K.T.A.] ‘we are be- 
come as the filth, or refuse, of the 
world ;’ ‘purgamenta mundi,’ Vulg., 
Syr., al. The word mepixa@dpu. has two 
meanings, both of late lexical authority, 
— the simple form (xa@dpyara) in each 
case being the more usual, — viz. (a) 
‘quisquiliz,’ 7a év rats oikias &s wepiTTa 
amopimtoueva, Theod.; so in Arrian, 
Diss. Epict. W. 22 (speaking of Priam’s 
children): (8) ‘piacula,’ ‘lustramina’ 
(Prov, xxi. 18, "DR, ‘expiationis pre- 
tium’), in reference to victims, etc., 
sacrificed to avert a great public ca- 
lamity (ka@dépuara) : so Olsh., Osiander, 
al. The associated mepinua, as well 
as the whole tenor of the passage (see 
Hofmann), obviously points to (a) as 
the true meaning in the present case; 
so Vulg., Syr., and all the versions ex- 
cept Arm., where the derivative mean- 
ing of ‘ludibrium’ (&imot kad peverol, 
Cicumenius) is apparently adopted. 
For further details, see Wolf zz Zoc. 
Cure Philol. Vol. 111. p. 358. 

mwévtav mepiinpa] ‘ the offscouring of 
all things,’ ‘res circumquaque abrasa,’ 
Valckenaer (Scholia, Vol. I. p. 170), 
mepikatduaypya, Hesych. The word ap- 
pears to have the secondary meaning 
of ‘piaculum’ (comp. Syr., Aith., and 
see Tobit v. 18) ; see, however, the good 


note of Fritzsche, Handb. z. der Apokr. 
Part II. p. 50, and comp. Wolf zz Zoc. 
The emphatic words €ws &pre (con- 
nected with éyevf@nuev) very appro- 
priately close the vigorous paragraph; 
comp. ver. Il: e¥tovoy Thy mAnyhy ewe 
mpdos TS TéAEL, Chrys. 


14-21. Epilogue to this portion of the 
Epistle. True character and spirit of 
the foregoing admonition. 

14. odK évtpérwv] ‘ot as shaming 
you, o9x os Katacxbvev, Chrys.; the 
participle here specifying, not the pur- 
pose (‘ut confundam,’ Vulg., GEcum., 
al.), but the accompaniments or, per- 
haps more exactly, the general asfect 
of the action;—‘ éytporm in animo 
Apostoli non finis erat, sed medium,’ 
Bengel. In all such cases the parti- 
ciple has its complementary character ; 
it presents in its completeness the 
character and circumstances of the 
whole action ; od movnpd kal micovon 
yraun Taita Aéyw, Theoph.: see Kiihner, 
Gr. § 481, where this usage of the 
participle is fully discussed and illus- 
trated; comp. Bernhardy, Syzt. xiv. 
13, p. 475 sq. The negative, as the 
form of the antithesis suggests (ob«n— 
aad) does not here, strictly considered, 
belong simply to the participle, but also, 
and indeed principally, to the finite verb 
(‘I do not write as thereby shaming’): 
the verb and participle form, as it 
were, a single enunciation over which 
the negation dominates. 


Cuap. IV. 14-16. 


riCORINT BILAN S* 


97 


puplous Travdaywyous eynte év XptoT@, GAN ov TroAXOvs TaTépas ° 
Pp Y pi Xn P re) p 


} \ a) n Xi la > ‘ ? \ ie lal % , 
ev yap Xpiot@ Inzod bia Tod evayyediov eyo mds eyevvnoa. 


Werapakadk® ovv twas, pyimtai pov yiveoOe. 


vovlérwv] ‘admonishing you.’ The 
word is a ‘vox media.’ The tone and 
nature of the vov@érno.s, and the gen- 
eral ‘animus admonentis’ must be col- 
lected from the associated contrast; 
comp. with each other Acts xx. 3], 
Col. iii. 16, and 1 Thess. v.14. Asa 
general rule, it has a lighter meaning 
(as here) than either évrpémwew or ém- 
tyay (voudeTHoas ovK ereioa, emiTiunoas 
npébioa, Synes., cited in. Steph. Zhesaur. 
s.v.), and, as its derivation suggests, 
implies a monitory appeal to the vois 
rather than a direct rebuke or censure: 
it passes, however, into this meaning 
(see 1 Sam. iii. 12, ok evovOeTer avTods, 
in reference to Eli and his sons; he 
did appeal to them), and sometimes 
even involves the idea of deeds; see 
notes o7 Col. i. 28, 1 Thess. v. 12, and 
comp. Cremer, Worterb. p. 444, who, 
however, too much interpolates the 
‘animus admonentis.’ 

I5. €dv yap «.T.r.] ‘For though ye 
may have ten thousand tutors in Christ;’ 
ground and justification of the form 
of the Apostle’s vov8érnors ; ‘spiritualis 
paternitas singularem necessitudinem 
et affectionem conjunctam habet, prez 
omni alia propinquitate,’ Bengel. The 
distinction between mupion (‘innume- 
rabiles’) and udpioe (‘decem millia’), 
though still advocated by Grimm. (Zex. 
s.v.), and even by Winer (Gy. § 6. 2), 
is rightly set aside by Meyer as without 
real foundation. In reference to matda- 
ywyots (here simply the subsequent 
‘eachers ; comp. ch. iii. 6 sq.), see notes 
on Gail. iii. 24, and on the familiar éy 
Xpior@ (ideal sphere of the action), 
notes oz Gal. v.6, Hooker, Serm. il. 
Vol. 11. p. 763 (Keble), Martensen, 
Dogmatics, § 176 obs. (Transl.). 


13 


li Ata Tovto 


GAN od] ‘yet ye have not 3’ emphatic 
antithesis, the aAAd idiomatically giv- 
ing point and emphasis to the nega- 
tion, — ‘assuredly ye have not:’ ‘sig- 
nificatur, etiamsi altera res alteram 
tollere aut minuere videatur, hanc ta- 
men locum habere et constare,’ Stall- 
baum, on Plat., Zaches, p. 183 A; comp. 
Hartung, Partik. Vol. 11. p. 40, Klotz, 
Devar. Vol. il. p. 93. So ‘at certe’ 
in Latin; comp. Hand, Zzrse/linzs, 
Vol. I. p. 427. év yap Xp, Ine. 
«.7.A.] ‘ For in Christ Jesus J (and none 
other; ‘non illi, non alii,’ Est.) degat 
you through the Gospel.’ Christ was 
the sphere in which the action took 
place (see above), and the Gospel the 
means (comp. I Pet. i. 23, dia Adyou 
(@vtos @cov) whereby the spiritual vivi- 
fication was vouchsafed ; ‘ verbum spir- 
ituale est semen; eo nostras animas 
regenerat solus Deus sua virtute, sed 
ministrorum operam non _ excludit,’ 
Calvin. 

16. twapakaho odv] ‘7 beseech you 
then.’ —as I stand in this close and 
tender relation to you; as I am he 6 
™Mp@Tos ckelpas Toy Xpiotiaviopmov ev Wuxi, 
Origen (Cramer, Cat.) 22 loc. 
pipntal pou ylverQe] ‘become imitators 
of me;’ viz., as the whole context 
clearly suggests, in humility and self- 
sacrifice ; comp. ver. 6-13, @s metpuddw 
petpidcere. & mdoxw maoxeTe, Theod- 
oret. The expression mimntal yiverbe 
(‘imitatores estote,’ Vulg.; ‘assimilam- 
ini,’ Aith.) marks the closeness of the 
following which the Apostle presses 
on them; they were not merely to be 
satisfied with saying they were ‘of 
Paul,’ but to do what Paul did, and 
bear what he bore; it was to be imi- 
tation; comp. ch. xi. 1, Phil. iii. 17, al. 


98 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Crap. IV. 16, 17. 


” e lal / cd > / , BJ A \ 
éreua viv Tipodeov, os éotiv pou Téexvoy ayamnTov Kal 


X 2 / a eon > , \ c , \ 2 
TWtOTOV EV Kupio, OS VAS AYALVNOEL TAS od0UsS Mov Tas €&V 


Xpictd, Kabos ravtayod év maon éxxdrnolg bWacKw. 


17. pov réxvov] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very 


clearly preponderating authority: Rec. Tékvov wou; see verse 14. 


The 


addition of "Inaod to Xpicr@ (Lachm., Tisch., [Westc. and Hort]) has good but 


insufficient critical support. 


For a good sermon on this text, see 
Barrow, Works, Vol. 1. p. 335, and on 
the imitation of Christ generally, Mar- 
tensen, Chr. Ethics, § 95 sq. Vol. I. 
293 sqq. (Transl.) 

17. Ava totto] ‘ Hor this cause,’ viz. 
for the sake of promoting and helping 
onward this imitation; the verse logi- 
cally and naturally depending on the 
verse immediately preceding. There 
is no ground whatever (with Beza and 
others) for regarding this as a new 
paragraph ; the subject-matter is slightly 
changed, but the general thought is 
continuous. The addition of airéd 
(Tisch. Westc. and Hort marg.) is 
supported by two first-class MSS., but 
independently of opposing external 
authority, has the aspect of an empha- 
sizing addition. érepmpa dpiv 
Tuy.] ‘Z have sent to you Timothy.’ 
Timothy had started prior to the letter, 
but, having first to go through Mace- 
donia (Acts xix. 22), would not arrive 
at Corinth till after the letter (see 
below ch. xvi. 10). The Apostle first 
heard of the parties and party-spirit at 
Corinth from some of the household 
of Chloe (ch. i. 11); whereupon he 
sent, as is here specified, his faithful 
friend and follower. bs éorly pov 
K.T.A.] ‘who zs my child, beloved and 
faithful in the Lord ;’ comp. 1 Tim. i. 
2, 18, 2 Tim. i. 2. The latter words of 
this clause seem to form a kind of 
secondary predication (Donalds. Gr. § 
442. b). Timothy was the Apostle’s 
own child, and so one appropriately 
sent to those who stood in the same 


relation to the Apostle, a réxvov to 
Téxva (ver. 14); and besides this he was 
beloved (comp. ver. 14) and faithful, 
and that too in the only sphere in 
which love and faithfulness attained 
their true proportions,—éy Kuplo. 
This we need hardly add is ot év tots 
kata Kipiov mpdyuaow, Chrys.; comp. 
notes oz Eph. iv. 17, vi. 1. és 
tpas dvapv. K.t.A.] ‘who shall put you 
im remembrance, or bring back to your 
remembrance, my ways which are in 
Christ,—and which you would now 
seem to have forgotten ; An@ny 5& abtav 
6 Adyos karnyopet, Theod. In this 
second member, which, it may be 
observed, preserves its relatival form 
instead of lapsing, as more usual, into 
the demonstrative form (see Kihner. 
Gr. 561. 1), the relative has perhaps a 
slight tinge of causality, or rather of 
that explanatory force which is often 
to be traced in its use; see ch. i. 30, 
and notes 77 /oc., and on Col. i. 18, 25, 
and comp. Ellendt, Zex. Soph. s. v. Il. 
3, Vol. 11. p. 371. The ddof of the 
Apostle further specified as ai év Xpior@ 
were those courses of faithfulness, 
simplicity, and self-denial (ch. i. 17, ii. 
I sq.) which the Apostle followed at 
Corinth, and especially refers to in 
this Epistle. Kaas TavTaXxod 
K.t.A.] ‘as L teach everywhere in everv 
Church,’—not merely at Corinth, but 
everywhere else: if «af had been in- 
serted the contrast would have been 
brought out more distinctly. The 
xa0ds does not here simply specify (a) 
what was expressed generally in the 


CuHap. IV. 17-20. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 99 


BS Ds pH épxouevov 5é pou mpos tuas épvowOnoay Twes* 


WerXevoowar SE Tayéws mpos buds, éav o Kupios Oedrjon, Kab 


, > \ , a , > \ \ s 
yVacouat ov TOY AOYoY TaV TEpYTLMMEVOY aNrAA THY S¥VaMLY* 


ov yap év Koyo 7 Bacirela Tod Oeod ar év duvapen. 


foregoing words (Alf.), nor (8) the 
accordance of Timothy’s teaching with 
that of his spiritual father, (Hofmann), 
as the «a@#s would thus have to be 
regarded as more exclusively dependent 
on a@vauvhoes than the tenor of the 
passage warrants, but,— in accordance 
with the normal meaning of the word,— 
(y) the form and manner (‘according 
as,’ ‘even as’) of the teaching,—its 
simplicity, humility, and absence of 
selfish elements (see last note), as 
manifested not merely under the pecu- 
liar circumstances of the Church of 
Corinth, but, as he says, emphatically, 
everywhere: ‘nihil peculiare vobis in- 
jungo,’ Estius. 

18. ds pr) EpXopévov S€ pov] ‘ But as 
though I were not coming ;’ contrast 
between the mistaken opinion of 
some at Corinth and the true 
circumstances of the case, the later 
position of 5€ being simply caused 
by the practical union of the first three 
words ; comp. Klotz, Devar. p. 378 sq.; 
Kiihner, Gr. § 528. 1. The Apostle 
precludes the supposition that the 
sending of Timothy implied any 
fear on his own part; it was not a 
case of dmay 5é Oappa, 2 Cor. x. i. On 
this use of ws, as marking the asfect 
(and that aspect an erroneous one) 
under which the case was regarded, see 
notes oz Col. iii. 23, and compare 
Donalds. Gr. § 590. eprvo Hdnoay] 
‘were puffed up,’ ‘inflati sunt,’ Vulg.: 
‘vitium Corinthiis frequens, z/fatio,’ 
Bengel. For aught the tense says they 
may be so still (‘are puffed up,’ Auth., 
Reyv.), but what is here stated is simply 
an historic fact: see notes oz Phil. i. 
29; comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 386. 13. 


21 ry 


1g. taxéws] ‘guickly,,— yet not so 
quickly as to preclude a stay at Ephe- 
sus till Pentecost; see below, ch. xvi. 
8. éav & Kipios Ocdjoy] ‘if the 
Lord will ;’ so James iv. 15, and sim. 
I Cor. xvi. 7. It is very doubtful 
whether the First or the Second person 
of the blessed Trinity is here referred 
to. Meyer (on Rom. xv. 32, critical 
note) urges that the Apostle, in all 
references to the divine working, either 
in the realms of power or of grace, 
always uses @¢Anua in relation to God 
the Father; and that where the @éAnua 
of our Lord is referred to (Eph. v. 17), 
the reference is to ‘the moral will.’ 
If this be true, the reference here would 
be to God the Father. The reference 
in ver. 17 to our Lord might seem to 
make it more natural to continue the 
reference to Him in this verse also 
(comp. also ch. xvi. 7, where the ref. 
to our Lord is the more probable); 
but, as there is a slight break in 
thought between verses 18 and 19, per- 
haps the view of Meyer may be ac- 
cepted. On the force of the tense 
(@eAjon), comp. notes on ch. vii. 8. 
viv Sivapuv] ‘Zhe power.’ What power? 
Certainly not their power in reference 
to any miraculous manifestations 
(Chrys.), and scarcely their power in 
its moral and ethical aspect (Osiander), 
or in spreading the Gospel (Meyer), 
but, as ver. 20 seems to suggest, their 
power in its spiritual character; scil. 
whether they have, or have not, the 
only true power, the power of the 
Spirit ; see ch. ii. 4, 1 Thess i. 5. 

20. od yap K.T.A.] ‘For the kingdom 
of God 7s notin word, but in power ;’ con- 
firmatory of, and in justification of, 


100 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. IV. 20-V. I. 


Oérere; ev paBdm Ow mpods buds, ) ev ayary mvevparti Te 


TPAUTNTOS ; 


There is a case of griev- 
ous sin among you, 


V. “Ordws axoverar év vpiv tropveia, Kal 


which must be punished. Purge out old leaven. 


the clause which had just preceded, 
yvdéooua «.7.A.: the kingdom of God is 
not in, has not as its substratum, Adyos, 
but ddvauis. On the meaning of the 
frequently recurring expression BaotAcla 
Tod cod (the developing kingdom of 
our Redeemer, the Messianic kingdom: 
‘the kingdom indeed is prepared, but 
the children of it are being prepared,’ 
Luther), see notes and reff, oz Gal. v. 
21, and on the modern meanings of 
this expression, Harless, Z¢hzcs, § 17. 
7, Martensen, £¢/ics, § 45, Rothe, 
Dogmatik, Part Il. § 2, p. 17. 

21. rl OéXere] * What will ye?’ scil. 
which of the two alternatives? the rf 
being here, as the context implies, 
equivalent in meaning to mértepoy or 
tl éx T&y Svo (Matt. xxi. 31), but sharper 
and more emphatic. Meyer refers to 
the note of Stallbaum on Plato, Pizleb. 
p. 52 D, where this usage is well dis- 
cussed. It is, however, a case which 
speaks for itself. év papSwo Ow] 
‘am I to come with a rod?’ scil. pro- 
vided with, accompanied with,—the 
primary idea of environment passing 
easily into that of accompaniment 
(comp. Luke xiv. 31, and notes oz Col. 
ii. 7), and thence of being provided 
or supplied with; see Heb. ix. 25, év 
aluart GAAoTplw, I John v. 6, év tg dart, 
and comp. 1 Tim. i. 18, and hereon 
Winer, Gr. § 48. 3. 4; see also Buttm. 
lV. T. Gr. § 147. 10. The deliberative 
subjunctive éw may either be regarded 
as dependent on a latent 6éAere (comp. 
Winer, Gr. § 41. 4. 6) or, more naturally, 
as simply independent, and commen- 
cing a second interrogation; see Mark 
xii. 14, Rom. vi. 1, and comp. exx. in 
Kriiger, Sprachi. § 54. 2. 3. 


Tvevpat. mpairntos) ‘the spirit of 
meekness;’ the spirit of which the 
characterizing quality (Kriiger Sprachl. 
§ 47. 5. 13) is mpaiirns, and of which 
the inworking power is the Holy 
Spirit. In all these passages where 
mvedua is thus joined with an abstract 
genitive, a reference to the Holy 
Spirit is always involved,—in some 
cases more directly (compare 2 Tim. i. 
7, and notes 7 J/oc.),—in others, as 
here, more remotely; see notes 07 Gal. 
vi. 1, andoz Z£ph.i. 17. The meaning 
of mpaiirns (gentle submissiveness to 
God as well as to man), one of the 
true fruits of the Spirit (Gal. v. 23) is 
discussed in the notes on that passage. 
It may be noticed that in several older 
expositors (so also in Lachmann) this 
verse forms the beginning of a new 
paragraph. The absence of all con- 
necting particles at the beginning of ch. 
v. 1., and the link of thought, as to the 
Apostle’s coming, between verses 18, 
19 and the present verse, point strongly 
the other way. 


II. CENSURE OF NOTORIOUS SINS IN 
THE CORINTHIAN CHURCH (ch. v. I— 
ch. vi. 20). 


1-8. The case of the incestuous person. 
1. “Odws] ‘ Actually, absolutely,— with 
a very distinct emphasis, to bring out 
the revolting nature of the case, and to 
justify the question of the foregoing 
verse; mAnkrik@s, Chry2.; évépnve thy 
Ths atomias stmepBodnv, Theod.; see 
ch. vi. 7, xv. 29, and with a negative, 
Matt. v. 34. The meaning of this word 
is slightly under debate. It may sig- 
nify (2) ‘in summa’ (so apparently 
Syr.), e.g. Plato, Rep. IV. 3. 437 B, dapiv 


Pie as! 


CHARA IV. 1. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


101 


ia 7 v4 > at hd) Lal yy 4 Lal / A 
ToLavTn Tropvela HTL ovde ev Tols EOverw, WaTE YyuValKa TLVa TOD 


TATpOS EXEL. 


2 \ e Lal , e) , \ b \ lal 
Kat vets Tepvov@pevor cate, Kal ovXl “ado 


1. év tots Oveow] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very 
greatly preponderating authority: Rec. adds dvoud¢erat. 


kal mewyv Kal ddws Tas émduuias) ;—a 
meaning, however, here obviously inap- 
propriate; or (4) ‘commonly,’ Auth.,— 
with reference to the general circulation 
and prevalence of the report;—a 
meaning of doubtful lexical authority, 
and certainly exegetically unsatisfac- 
tory; as the Apostle would not be 
likely to base what follows on the 
prevalence of the report, but on the 
actual facts of the case; or lastly (c) 
‘absolutely,’ ‘actually,’ —a meaning of 
good lexical authority (comp. Plut., 
Mor. p. 415 F), and certainly in har- 
mony with the emphatic tenor of the 
context: so Rev., apparently Arm., and, 
probably, Vulg., ‘omnino,’— except 
that this last word admits of even a 
greater variety of meanings than éaAqs. 
This last meaning is clearly to be 
preferred: comp. the paraphrase of 
Bengel, — ‘dAws nulla debebat in vobis 
audiriscortatio; at auditur dAws,’ Beng. 

Gkoverat év tpiv] ‘7s heard of, is re- 
ported, among you ;’ the év tui being 
very clearly connected with dkoverat, 
and marking, not those about whom 
(‘de vobis,’ Bengel), but among whom, 
—in the Christian Church of Corinth, 
—the report was circulating. The 
Apostle most likely heard the sad story 
from the same persons who told him 
of the factions (ch. i. 11) ; it was unhap- 
pily only too well known; ‘nihil aliud 
auditur,’ Wetst. Kalrovadry mopveia] 
‘and (let me add) fornication of such a 
kind ;’ the «at having here its ascen- 
sive, or rather climactic force, and both 
specifying the nature of the mopveta 
and marking its revolting character; 
see notes oz 1 Thess. i. 6, and comp. 
Buttm. WV. 7. Gr. § 149.8. h. In ref- 


erence to the statement made in this 
clause, it may be observed that the 
fewness of the recorded cases, as well 
as the horror with which such cases 
were always regarded, fully justifies 
the Apostle’s declaration that such a 
form of mopveia truly did not eyist 
(axovera is not to be supplied) even 
among the heathen; see the examples 
and quotations in Wetstein 27 oc. 
adore yuvaika K.T.r.] ‘that one should 
have the wife of his father ;’ the éaTe 
with its usual and proper force (‘con- 
secutio alicujus rei ex antecedentibus,’ 
Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 771) intro- 
ducing the ‘consecutive’ or illative 
clause (Donalds. Gr. § 596), and the 
prominence of the words yur. 0d martpés, 
as well as the form of expression (not 
mntpuia), bringing out the shocking 
nature of the sin; comp. Lev. xviii. 8. 
Whether we are to suppose that it went 
to the extent of a marriage is doubtful. 
A monstrous rule specified by Maimon- 
ides (see Wetst. 272 Zoc., and comp. Sel- 
den, de Jure Nat. 1. 4) in reference to 
proselytes, who, as being new-born and 
utterly other persons, could contract 
such marriages, makes it just possible 
that here such an enormity might have 
taken place; but it certainly seems 
more natural (with Hofmann) to regard 
it as an act of incestuous concubinage. 
The aor. participles mojoas, ver. 2, 
and katepyacduevos, ver. 3 (De Wette, 
Meyer), really do not prove anything, 
and éxew, though commonly thus used 
in the N.T. with reference to marriage 
(ch. vil. 2, 29, Matt. xiv. 4, xxii. 8), is 
also used otherwise ; comp. John iv. 18. 
The father of the man was apparently 
still alive ; see 2 Cor. vii. 12. 


102 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


CHAP. V..2)°3: 


b 4 / > a , 2 lal e s y lal 's 

éerrevOnaate, iva apOn ex pécou tuov 6 TO Epyov ToUTO TroWcas. 

3° Eyo pev yao, amrov TO o@ apwov o€ TH TvevpaTL, HON 
yO pev yap, aToVv TO cHyaTL Trap ( ate, 7 


2. ape]. So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev. Westc. and Hort, on vastly pre- 


ponderating authority: Rec., céap6n. 


moinoas] So Rec., Lachm., Treg., 


Rev., on apparently preponderating authority: Zzsch., Westc. and Hort, mpdtas. 
Decision is here very difficult, internal considerations being really as balanced 


as the external evidence. 


3. ardév] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort, on greatly preponder- 


ating authority: 2ec., as amdy. 


2. Kal dpets k.T.A.] * ad ve (emphatic, 
—ye among whom such a shameful 
sin finds a place, and perhaps even 
toleration) are puffed up.’ The major- 
ity of modern editors (Lachm., Tisch., 
Treg., Westc. and Hort) and commen- 
tators take this verse interrogatively, 
— probably on account of the vast pre- 
ponderance of instances in the N.T. in 
which ovxi is so used. As, however, 
there are a few instances of the non- 
interrogative use (ch. x. 29, Luke xii. 51, 
xiii. 2, 5, John xiii. 10), in all of which, 
as here, the negation is strong and 
emphatic (odx! ‘fortius negat,’ Grimm ; 
comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 512. 1), and as 
the sudden question seems to weaken 
rather than strengthen the calm sever- 
ity of the words, we decide (with Auth., 
Rev.) against the interrogation. So, 
as it would seem, Chrys. (contra The- 
odoret), and Origen (Cramer, Catez.), 
Thy kaTnyopiay eicpepet. tva ap07 
k.T.A.] ‘ that so he that had don: this deed 
(of shame) might be removed from among 
you,’ ‘not the direct purpose of the 
erevOnoate (Meyer; comp. Winer, G7. 
§ 53), which would involve a forced 
interpretation of the word,—nor, on 
the other hand, the mere vesz/¢ (‘so 
that,’ Neander; comp Chrys., Theod., 
&ore) of the act, but, in that secondary 
telic force in which wa is, certainly 
more than occasionally, found in the 
N.T.,— the contemplated issue of the 
act; see notes oz 1 Thess. v. 4, and 
comp. notes 07 Eph. i. 17, and even 


Winer, Gr. § 44. 8, who, with certain 
verbs, does not deny the weakened 
usage. The remark of Haupt is thor- 
oughly true — that the idea of purpose 
frequently presents itself in the N.T. 
where we should more naturally sub- 
stitute the idea of consequence; see 
notes o7 1 John i. 9 The term 
épyov (here, very nearly, ‘facinus’ ; 
‘actio prava, citra matrimonium,’ Ben- 
gel) is used quite generally, the exact 
shade of meaning being supplied by 
the context. 

3. “Hy pev yap] ‘ For J verily,’ ‘ For 
L, for my part ;’ confirmation (comp. 
Winer, Gr. § 53. 3) of the va apéj of 
the preceding verse, the wey solitarium 
(see Hermann, Viger, No. 336) serving 
to mark the contrast between the 
Apostle, in his judgment on the sin, 
and the Corinthians and their com- 
parative indifference: see notes ox 
1 Thess. ii. 18, where this usage of pév 
is more fully discussed. array 
TO oopati] ‘being absent in the (my) 
body,—qua my body;’ the dative 
marking the object to which the predi- 
cation of the verb was to be referred. 
Such a use of the dative is far from 
uncommon in the N,T., and may be 
roughly characterized as marking eth- 
ical Jocality ; see notes o7 Gal. i. 22, on 
1 Zhess. ii. 17, and examples in Winer, 
Gr. § 31.6. a The dative is essen- 
tially the case by which the substance 
of the sentence becomes extended in 
its reference (see Rumpel, Casuslehre, 


CuHap. V. 3, 4. 


tT GOREN TH PANS. 


108 


KEKPLKA WS TAPWY TOV OUTWS TOUTO KaTEpyacauevov, *év TH 


dvowatt Tod Kupiov nav Incod, cvvayPévtwy ipav Kai Tod 


4. In this verse Xpiorod is added in each place toInaod by Rec., but is 
omitted in each place by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, in the 
former case by clearly, and in the latter by greatly, preponderating authority. 


p- 261), and so practically the case of 
definition or limitation; see Kihner, 
Gr. § 423. TO Tvevpatr] ‘the 
(my) spirit ;’ so very similarly Col. ii. 
5, ef yap Kal TH oapKl wre, GAA TH 
mvevuatt ov vuivy eiut. In both these 
passages the mvedua is clearly not the 
Holy Spirit (rvedua 5¢ 7d xdpioua A€yel, 
Sever.), but the highest part of our 
composite human nature (‘vis superior 
imperans, agens in homine,’ Olsh.), 
and so, that with which man commu- 
nicates with the Holy Spirit; comp. 
Rom. viii. 16, and see notes bn Col. Lives 
and oz 1 Thess. v. 23. In that highest 
part, that ‘potior pars’ of our common 
nature (comp. Gal. vi. 18, 2 Tim. iv. 
22), the Apostle is present with the 
Corinthian Church and gives solemnly 
his judgment. On the subject of Bib- 
lical psychology generally, a subject 
often alluded to in these notes, the 
student may be profitably referred to 
the smaller treatise in Olshausen, Opus- 
cula, Art. V1. and the larger and valu- 
able treatise of Delitzsch, 2767. Psychol. 
(now translated into English, — Clark, 
Theol. Libr.) and the older, but very 
interesting work of Schubert, Ge- 
schichte der Seele, 2 vols. (Stuttgart, 
1850). 
yaodp.] ‘touching him that has thus 
wrought this thing, — probably, ‘thus 
shamelessly and openly, as you your- 
selves know only too well.’ The ac- 
cusative and associated clause loosely 
hang on «éxpixa (‘graviter suspensa 
manet et vibrat oratio,’ Bengel), liut 
structurally belong to mapadotva (Est.) 
in ver. 5,— the accus. tov ob Tws k.7.A. 
being resumed by the toy rotodroy 


Tov oTws TOUTO KaTEp- 


k.T.A. in ver. 5. That «plvew can be 
thus used semi-absolutely (the objec- 
tion of Heinrici) may be confirmed by 
such passages as ch. ii. 2, Titus iii. 12, 
al. The force of the verb kartepy. 
should not be left unnoticed; ‘qui tale 
ac tantum facinus /erfetravit, Est. 
The word occurs about twenty times 
in St. Paul’s Epp., and, in every case, 
either as here (‘de rebus que fiunt 
non honeste’), or in the sense of com- 
pleting or accomplishing (‘notat rem 
arduam’); épyw éxpicato TG Kakg, Se- 
verian ; see notes oz Eph. vi. 13. 

4. év To évépare «K.7.A.] In this 
verse and the following we have four 
possible constructions: (a) the connec- 
tion of év 7@ évdu. with the participial 
clause (cuvaxévtwy k.7.A.) and of aby 
Th Suvduer x.7.A. with the infinitival 
clause (mapadotvat «.7.A , ver. 5); (4) 
both with the participial clause; (c) 
both with the infinitival clause; or 
lastly (¢d) év 7G Ovdu. x.7.A. with the 
infinitival, and oty tH Suv. x.7.A. with 
the participial, clause. The Greek 
commentators, whose judgment in such 
a matter may rightly have weight with 
us, appear to prefer (4); the solemnity, 
however, of the formula év r@ dévon., 
and its connection in passages of a 
somewhat similar authoritative tenor 
(comp. Acts iii. 6, iv. 10, xvi. 18, 2 Thess. 
iii. 6) seem to preponderate in favor of 
(Zz), and the connection with the lead- 
ing verb. The principle in the early 
Christian Church was ever, — av 8 tt 
eay mote ev Adyw A ev Epyw, mavTa év 
évduatt Kupiov “Ingod, Col. iii. 16, where 
see notes and references as to the 
general meaning (‘in the holy and 


104 


1 CORINTHEANS: 


CuapP. V. 4, 5- 


€uov Tvevpatos ovv TH Svvaper ToD Kupiov nuev ‘Incod, * rapa- 


la x n a a > ” o , ivf \ 
dodvat Tov TowiTov T® Ratava eis breOpov THs capKos, iva TO 


spiritual element which his name be- 
tokens’) of the weighty formula: 7o- 
covrov Stvata: Td bvoua tov ‘Inood, 
Origen. Of the Vv., Syr. and /£th. 
appear to adopt (4), Arm. to adopt (@), 
—but in such cases Vv. can scarcely 
be confidently appealed to, the order 
of the original being always maintained 
where in any way possible. ov 
Ty Suvdper] ‘together with the power, 
— stv, as always, marking the coherence 
(Kriiger, Sfrachl. § 68. 13. 1) of the 
duvamis with the spirit of the Apostle, 
and so with the gathered Church. The 
ddvamis x.T.A. is not a ¢hivd element or 
factor, but is that which supports and 
aids the Apostle, and gives authority 
and validity to the whole; see Hof- 
mann 27 Joc. St. Paul’s spirit with 
the associated power of Christ is pres- 
ent with the convoked synod, and with 
that synod passes the authoritative 
sentence. The gravity of the ‘sus- 
pensa oratio’ (Bengel) of these verses 
is greatly enhanced by the sequence, — 
the determination of the Apostle, the 
blessed name in which all was done, 
the convocation of the synod, the 
Apostle’s spiritual presence at it, and 
the all-sustaining power of the Lord 
with which it was associated, and then, 
lastly, the terrible but necessary sen- 
tence: gplkns weotdr ovverpdtnge Sikac- 
tnpiov, Theodoret. 

5. Tapadodvar to Darava] ‘40 deliver 
over to Satan;’ excommunication (atpev 
ék peoou, ver. 2), accompanied, as the 
context seems distinctly to imply, with 
the infliction of bodily,disease or even 
death; see Waterland, oz Fundam. ch. 
4, Vol. 11. p. 460, and see the com- 
ments and references in notes oz 
1 Zim. i. 20, where the formula again 
occurs: comp. also Weiss, 426/. Theol. 
§ 89. c, Vol. 11. p. 15 note (Transl.). 


The special apostolic power to which 
this formula refers appears before 
us in the case of Ananias (Acts v. 
I sq.), was dimly dreaded by Simon 
(Acts vill. 24), and was actually ex- 
perienced by Elymas (Acts xiii. 9 sq.). 
This view seems recognized indirectly 
by the early commentators, but rather 
as a consequence resulting from Satan’s 
availing himself of the unprotected 
state of the (excommunicated) man 
(€merow 6 didBodos ephuous cipioxwv Tis 
xdpiros, Theod.), than as the result of 
direct apostolical discipline. This, 
however, falls short of the full signifi- 
cance of the expression, and of the 
simple and natural meaning of the 
associated clause. Satan is but the 
subordinated agent who carries out 
the disciplinary sentence. On the 
personality of Satan, see Martensen, 
Dogm. § 102, p. 193 (Transl.), Dorner, 
Christian Doctrine, § 86. 3, Vol. 11. 
p- 108 sqq. (Transl.). 

els SAeOpov Tis capKds]} ‘for the de- 
struction of the flesh ;’ for the destruc- 
tion and complete breaking up of that 
sensual nature in which and by which 
he had sinned; proximate purpose of 
the mapddoo1s. The man was given 
over to Satan (iva maidev07, Origen ap. 
Cramer, Cat. ; comp. I Tim. i. 20), that 
by bodily sufferings or disease the odpt 
(‘qua peccarat,’ Bengel) might be 
subdued and indeed destroyed as the 
‘fomes peccati.’ The meaning of odpt 
seems here to occupy a sort of middle 
ground between its more purely ethical 
(comp. notes on ch. i. 26, and oz Gal. 
v. 5) and its more simple and physical 
meaning. It is here the material odpt 
considered as the seat, of the sinful mo- 
tions; comp. notes o7 Cod. ii. 11. Philippi, 
Glaubenslehre, Vol. 11. p. 231 sq. (ed. 2), 
and see the useful reff. and comments 


Cuap. V. 5-7. 


a A > A e a lo) 
mvetua own ev TH Hmepa TOV 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


105 


Kupiov *Inaad. ° Ov Kadov Tod 


Us e n > 7 oe \ / m6 x 7 a 
Kavynua vuav. ovK oidate OTL pixpa CUpn Odov 70 Hvpawa Cvpor ; 


5. Tod Kupiov “Inood] So Rec., Tisch., Treg., Rev., on slightly preponder- 
ating authority: Zachm. places in brackets juav *"Incod Xpicrod after Kuplov; 
Westc. and Hort simply read tod Kupiov, but place the added *Inood in the 


margin. 
insufficient authority. 


in Cremer, £72b1.-Theol. Weorterb. p. 
B20. (va Td mvedpa KT] 272 
order that the spirit may be saved in the 
day of the Lord Jesus ;’ further and 
fuller purpose of the mapddoc1s. It was 
the design of the judicial act to destroy 
that which formed, as it were, the 
substratum of sensual sin, and thus to 
save that which was the substratum of 
the higher life and the medium of 
communication with the Holy Spirit. 
Satan thus becomes the unconscious 
and over-ruled agent for good. What 
is destroyed is not an integral part of 
man, his o@ua (comp. 1 Thess. v. 23), 
but that addititious part im which 
sensual sin made its abode, and which, 
even in its own simple and material 
nature, could not inherit the kingdom 
of God (1 Cor. xv. 50); comp. Chrys- 
ostom 77 /oc. and Origen (Cramer, Caz.), 
both of whom rightly explain the tenor 
of the two clauses. 

6. O¥ kaddv «.t.d.] ‘Your matter of 
glorying ts not good,’ —is not right, or 
to be commended; kadds here slightly 
reverting towards its primary idea 
(Donalds. Craty/. § 334), and indicating 
not only the intrinsic character of the 
kavxnua, but the aspect it would .as- 
sume in the eyes of every right-judging 
man. On the distinction between kaAds 
and aya@ds, see notes oz Gal. vi. 10, 
and comp. Cremer, W%7terb. p. 340 sq. 
The matter and subject of boasting 
which the Apostle thus condemns is 
the state of the Corinthian Church, 
which many of those to whom the 
Apostle was writing deemed highly 

14 


The shorter reading is certainly probable, but rests on apparently 


satisfactory, but which, by its toleration 
of the unhappy man, was much other- 
wise ; ‘superbiebant perinde ac si omnia 
fuissent apud se aurea, quum tamen 
tantum flagitii ac dedecoris inter ipsos 
foret,’ Calvin zz Joc. puke 
Cipy] ‘a little leaven ;’ almost, ‘a very 
little’ (kal Bpaxeia otoa, Chrys.), the 
epithet preceding the substantive, and 
so being in the position of emphasis; 
see Winer, Gr. § 61. 1. 6; comp. 
Madvig, Syzt. § 218. It has been 
doubted whether the reference is to 
the sinful man or to his sin in the 
abstract, and as illustrative of the 
character of sin generally. Either is 
tenable ; but the context (ver. 8) seems 
here in favor of the latter interpreta- 
tion; in Gal. v. 9 the weight of the 
argument from the context seems the 
other way; see notes zz loc. The word, 
with a similar metaphorical reference, 
is also found in Matt. xiii. 33 (Luke 
xiii. 21), xvi. 6 (Mark viii. 15, Luke xii. 
1); comp. Ignat. AZagz. to, and Suicer, 
Thesaur. Vol. 1. p. 1299. 

7. exkaddpare K.T.A.] ‘Purge out the 
old leaven, scil. tbv Tadaidy &vOpwroy 
ov tails mpdteow avtov, Orizen (ap. 
Cramer, Catz.), Calvin, al., in accordance 
with the view taken in the verse above. 
The reference to the sinful man in 
question is adopted by Chrys., al.,— 
but, from the general tenor of the 
passage (comp. (tun kaktlas kal movnplas, 
ver. 8), with less probability. The 
Apostle passes from the specific case to 
the general exhortation which was 
naturally suggested by it. It may be 


106 


1 CORINTH EANS: 


HAP. Vi 7: 


wv 3 / \ \ A iv a f J , 
‘éxxabdpate Tv Tadalav Copmv, iva Are véov Pipapya, Kabes 


> ” \ \ \ , con > 50 i "¢ ’ 82 
E€OTE atupot* Kab yap TO TAaCNa NLWVY ETUUH PlaTos. WOTE 


7. éxxabdpate thy x.7.A.] So Lachm., 
on greatly preponderating authority: Rec., éxkaddpare ody. 


Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, 
The insertion 


of brtp judy (Lec.) after jua@v, is even more clearly to be rejected. 


doubted whether there is any special 
reference to the custom of removing all 
leaven prior to the Passover (Origen 
Z.c.). The primary command (Ex. xii. 
19, xiii. 7) is, however, clearly in the 
Apostle’s thoughts: as it was with the 
children of Israel on leaving the land 
of Egypt, so, metaphorically, must it 
ever be with the Christian Church; see 
Hofmann 77 Zoc. véov dipapa] 
‘a new lump, a morally renewed 
community, a body of Christian men 
Guryes kaxias, Theoph. On the dis- 
tinction between (vecens, with 
reference to aformer state), and rads 
(2ovus, with reference to the quality of 
the state), see notes oz Col. ili. 10, Eph. 
iii. 16, iv. 24, and comp. Trench, Syzzoz. 
§ 60, p. 206 sqq. (Lond. 1871), Titmann, 
Synon. p. 59,and Cremer, W6rterd. p. 
232, 430. The distinction may be 
succinctly, and with substantial ac- 
curacy, expressed in the formula, ‘véos 
ad tempus, kavds ad rem refertur,’ 
Trench, /oc. cit. p. 214. Kadas 
éore dLupor] ‘even as ye are unleavened, 
scil. even as, by principle and profession 
ye verily are those who have put away 
the leaven of sin and wickedness; not, 
Kabws mpémer civar duas, Chrys. (comp. 
Phot.), but xaOws éoré (the auxiliary 
verb is somewhat emphatic), ‘as, in 
your true normal state, ye are.’ The 
clause, as Bengel rightly observes, 
depends on the first,»rather than the 
second, clause of the verse: the com- 
mand was such as the true idea of Chris- 
tianity itself suggested. Any reference 
to an actual celebration of the Passover 
assumed to be then going on at 
Corinth (Conyb. and Howson, al.) is 


s 
veos 


neither consistent with the ethical 
tenor of the context nor in harmony 
with the ordinary use of &(vuos, which, 
when having its material reference, is 
used in reference to things (c.g. &pros, 
Ex. xxix. 2, Adyavov, 1 Chron. xxiii. 
29) rather than to persons. Kal yap 
K.7.A.] ‘for our passover also has been 
sacrificed, even Christ, the ydp, as 
usual, confirming, and the kai marking 
the actual and existing state of things 
which adds force to the exhortation: 
‘purge out, I say, the leaven, for, in 
addition to every other reason, Christ 
our pure and spotless lamb has been 
slain ; leaven is incompatible with His 
sacrificial presence.’ On the use of 
these associated particles, each of 
which always preserves its distinctive 
force, see Klotz, Devar. Vol. I. p. 642, 
Hartung, Partzk. Vol. I. p. 138, the 
good comments of Kiihner, Gr. § 544. 
3. 2, and the note on Phil. ii. 27. 
Whether the conjunctive or ascensive 
force of xat is most in prominence, 
must be gathered from the context. — 
The term mdoxa (and so probably ér@n: 
Hesych. éogdyn) is here used in its 
more limited sense of ‘agnus paschalis’ 
(Grimm), as in Mark xiv. 12, Luke 
Rk. 7) comp, 1x. scl. 29 PASethe 
blood of the paschal lamb was an ex- 
piatory offering for the sin of each 
household (Kurtz, Sacrificial Worship 
of O. T. § 185, p. 367, Transl.), so the 
blood of Jesus Christ was the expiatory 
offering for the sins of the whole 
world : comp. Oehler, Zheology of O. T. 
§ 154, Vol. 11. p. 114 sq., where the 
sacrificial and expiatory character of 
the Passover is fully recognized. 


Cuap. V. 8-9. 


Eoptalaper, py) ev Con Tarara 
plas, GAN év abvpous etduxpweias 
9” Erypavra 


Avoid all communication 
with fornicators, and 
with all evil livers. 


8. wore k.7.A.] ‘ Wherefore’ or ‘ con- 
sequently, ‘itaque,’ Vulgate; closing 
and consequential exhortation in ref- 
erence to the clause immediately pre- 
ceding. On this use of &ore, the 
essential idea of which is ‘consecutio 
alicujus rei ex antecedentibus’ (Klotz, 
Devar. Vol. i. p. 771), see notes oz 
Phil. ii. 12. Though it cannot be 
gathered from these words, or from 
any words in ver. 8 (see above), that 
any paschal rites were then being 
observed at Corinth, yet it is quite 
reasonable to infer, from the expansion 
of the simple metaphor into the details 
of this and the foregoing verse, that the 
Epistle was written not long before 
the Passover, and that the thoughts 
of the approaching festival were then in 
the Apostle’s mind: comp. ch. xvi. 8, 
erriwev@ O& ev Edéow ews THs TevTNKOOTTS. 
The exhortation, however, has a 
perfectly general application: mas 6 
xpdvos EopTis cor ikaipds Tots Xpiotiavots, 
Chrys. kaklas Kal trovnplas] 
‘malice and wickedness, the former 
word marking the inward principle 
(opp. to dpeth, Plato, Aristot.; trans- 
lated by Cicero ‘ vitiositas’), the latter 
the manifestation and outcome of it in 
action; comp. Rom. i. 29, where the 
two words are again associated, and 
see Trench, Syzon. § 11, and Cremer, 
Weorterb. p. 328. év afipots 
eiAtkpiv. Kal dAnOelas] ‘772 the un- 
leavened elements of sincerity and truth.’ 
The term a(vuos is general,—all un- 
leavened things, principles, elements. 
These elements are defined by two 


" genitives of so-called apposition (Winer, 


Gr. § 59. 8. a), or, more exactly of 
definition (see Buttm. Gr. MW. T., p. 
68,— the gen. is ever the ‘explanatory 


1 CORINTHIANS. 107 


pndée ev Coun Kakias Kal Trovn- 
Kal adneias. 


by év TH €mricTONH pu) ovuva- 


background,’ Rumpel, Casuslehre, p. 
196), the first of which seems to mark 
the purity (kaapss Bios, Theoph., 
GHicums;, see 2) Cor. 1. 12; u. 17); the 
second, the moral reality (comp. John 
iii. 21, Eph. v. 9) of the principles. 
On the meaning and derivation of 
eiAukpivera (freedom from foreign ad- 
mixture: 7d duryes érépov, Etym. M.) 
see notes oz Phil. i. 10, and Trench, 
Synon. § 85. 

9-13. Explanation of a former com- 
mand relative to fornicators. 

9. typaipa ev ty émurrody] ‘7 wrote 
to you in the (former) letter, scil. in a 
letter now lost; so Meyer, De Wette, 
Hofmann, and the great majority of 
modern commentators. Chrysostom 
and nearly all of the patristic commen- 
tators refer these words to the present 
epistle. But (1) the passages (ver. 2, 
6) in which the command is said to be 
given cannot be regarded as containing 
anything so specific as that here re- 
capitulated; (2) the reference of the 
same form of words (év tH émoTtoAn) 
in 2 Cor. vii. 8 to a former, 2.e. this 
present epistle, and (3) the continued 
reference of this epistle to errors.and 
misconceptions anterior to its being 
written, leave it scarcely doubtful that 
the twés mentioned by Origen (Cram. 
Cat.) were right in referring the words 
to YAAN Tis emiaTOAY Fris viv ov od Cera. 
See Wordsw. 27 Zoc., who shows clearly- 
that the assumption that an epistle of 
St. Paul has been lost really involves 
no doctrinal difficulty. Th) 
cuvavapiyvurGat «.T.A.] ‘ot to keep 
company with fornicators ;’ ‘fornicariis,’ 
Vulg.; the word having in the N. T. 
(comp. Eph. v. 5) this, and not the 
darker shade of meaning which it has 


108 1 CORINTHIANS. 


[CuHap. V. Io. 


, a a ’ 
vaulyvucbat tropvo.s, ob mdavtws Tois TOpvots TOD KOoMoU TOUTOV 


H Tos mreovéxtas Kal dprrakw 7 cidworadTpars, érrel wpbeideTe 


10. ov mdvrws] The omission of kat (Rec.) before these words, the reading 
kal dpm. instead of # dpm. (Rec.) and of wpeidere instead of dpeiAere, are adopted 
by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, —all on greatly preponderating 


uncial authority. 


in classical writers. On the double 
compound ovvavaul-yyuc8e, comp. notes 
on 2 Thess. iii. 14. 

10. 08 wdvTws] ‘zot generally, not 
altogether,” ‘non omnino,’ Erasmus ; 
limitation of the foregoing negation, 
the od mdytws coalescing as a single 
particle and expressing the non-inclu- 
siveness of the command as regards 
the mdépvo: tod Kédcuov TovTov; see 
Winer, Gv. § 61, 5, Buttm. Gr. WV. 7. 
Pp: 334, and comp. Rom. iii. 9, where, 
however, the meaning is different, and 
like that of ob wavy (see Hartung. 
Partik. Vol. 11. p. 87), conveys a sharp 
negation, ‘nequaquam,’ Vulg. Here 
the Apostle simply guards his words 
against being taken too exclusively ; 
he explains that he was not alluding 
to aliens who might be involved in that 
sin, but to those who were members of 
the Church. TOU KST OV TOUTOV] 
‘of this world, of the non-Christian 
world, tév GAdAotplwy tis mloTews, 
Theodoret ; comp. ch. iii. 19, Gal. iv. 3, 
Eph. u..2, Col. ii. 8, al., where the 
same ethical tinge is similarly con- 
veyed by the associated pronoun. 
Hofmann appears to call this in ques- 


tion, but with that overdrawn and 


artificial logic which too often mars his 


otherwise able and suggestive com-. 


mentary. Onthe various meanings of 
Kéapuos, see notes o7 Gal. iv. 3, and the 
valuable comments of Harless, Chr. 
Ethics, § 6. 2 sq., p- 33 sq- (Transl.). 

4 tots meovéxtats K.T.A.] 607 with the 
covetous and extortionate ;’ the two 
being associated together with ral, and 
under the vinculum of a single article, 


as making up the full idea of aggres- 
sive piAavria. On the term mAcovetla, 
see Trench, Syzon. § 24, and comp. 
notes oz Lph. iv. 19. émrel acel- 
Nere K.T.A.] ‘sz2ce in such a case ye 
would have need to go out of the world ;’ 
the émei with its usual ratiocinative 
(‘essentiam rei causam reddit,’ Deva- 
rius) and retrospective force introdu- 
cing the logical alternative, and the 
&pa, with its regular reference to the 


existing state of things (‘rebus ita | 


comparatis,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. U. p. 
161) marking the difference of the 
case from our antecedent notion of it. 
see Donalds. Gr. § 548. 4. On the 
causal use of éwet as indicated by its 
probable derivation (émt, ef = ém) rovT@ 
ei; comp. Curtius, Zzym. p. 239), and 
its approximation in meaning to dp, 
see Kiihner., Gr. § 569. 1, Donalds. 
Gr. § 618. The true distinction, how- 
ever, between the two particles may 


always be traced: where the subor- 


dinate clause is of a coz/irmatory tenor, 
there ydép is used; where more of an 
argumentative tenor, there émel is more 
natural. It is used, for example, by 
Euclid in the commencement of a 
demonstration (Book I. 31), or in ref- 
erence to an obvious or admitted truth: 
see Book 1.17. The particle is not of 
very frequent occurrence in the N.T., 
the passages in which the reading is 
fairly certain being about twenty-seven 
in all. On the idiomatic use of 
the imperfect @pelAere to mark some- 
thing which, apart from any condition, 
would certainly have to take place 
under the circumstances as specified, 


CuapP. V. 11. 12. 1 CORINTHIANS. 109 


ipa éx ToD Kocpou e&eNOciv: " vov bé éyparpa bwiv wy ovvavapi- 
yvuo0at, eav Tis adeApos dvopwalomevos 7 TOpVOS 7) TAEQvEKTNS 

? 4 x / x f AX of n es x 
H eldwroraTpns % Aoldopos 7) wéOvcos 7) GpTae, TO TowovTH pNdé 
cuverbiew. ri yap pou Tovs éEa Kpivew ; ovyi Tos ow Kpuels 


11. viv] So Lachm., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on preponderating au- 
thority: Rec., Zisch., vuvt, but the probability of a correction in favor of the 
more emphatic form is not inconsiderable. The form # (rather than 4) is 


adopted in all the above-mentioned editions, including Z7sch. 
12. tovs tw] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very 
greatly preponderating authority: (ec. prefixes rat. 


see Winer, Gr. § 41. 2, Kithner, Gr. 
392. 4, and the good note of Stallbaum 
on Plato, Sym pos. Pp. 190 C. 

II. viv 8& ¢ypawa] ‘but, as tt 2s, [ 
wrote, Kata Taltny eypaya duiv thy ded- 
voav, Theodoret; the viv having its 
logical rather than its merely temporal 
force (see notes 07 1 Thess. iii. 8, Har- 
tung, Partik. Vol. 11. p. 25), and the 
éypaya its ordinary aoristic force as in 
ver. 9. The rendering ‘but now I 
write,’ Rev., al., is grammatically ten- 
able, but apparently less probable, (1) 
because the éypaa would hardly be 
used in two different senses (the first 
historical, the:second epistolary) in two 
verses so near and nearly connected ; 
(2) because it seems more contextually 
natural that after the Apostle had 
alluded to what he did not say, he 
should now specify what he did say. 
So apparently Syr., Arm., Copt. 
adeAdds dsvopaldpevos] ‘tearing the 


name of a brother.” The Corinthians, ° 


as it would seem, had failed properly 
to notice that this limitation was to be 
observed in, or, at any rate, imme- 
diately inferred from, the command as 
expressed in the former letter. To 
refer évoua(éuevos to what follows can 
hardly be said (with Phot.) ed @xeuw, as 
regards either order or interpretation. 

eiSwdatpys] ‘a7 zdolater.’ It is strange 
that such a sin should have been com- 
mitted eren by a nominal Christian. 


Social usages, however, and the idol- 
feasts to which the Apostle refers in 
ch. viii. may have led to a superstitious 
recognition of the beings supposed to 
be represented by the idols, which 
constituted the real efSwAoAatpeia. The 
enumeration of sins, it will be noticed, 
is somewhat different in ver. 10 and 
ver. II: it is, however, doubtful 
whether any exegetical deductions 
(comp. Hofmann) can very certainly 
be drawn from it. pede o-v- 
veoOieav] ‘20t even to cat with him ;’ 
objective, or as it is sometimes called 
expository, clause, dependent on the 
preceding éypaa, and climactic to uh 
ovvavautyvucbal. In such a case there 
was to be even a dissolution of the 
personal relation. On the circum- 
stances in which such a dissolution is 
directed in Holy Scripture (comp. 
2 Thess. iii. 14, Titus iii. 10, 2 John 10), 
see the excellent remarks of Harless, 
Chr. Ethics, § 48. a. p. 391 sq. (Transl.). 

12. tl yap «.t.d.] ‘For what have I 
to do with judging them that are with- 
out?’ Confirmatory clause, showing 
that the Apostle’s words were ob- 
viously to be limited to Christians: he 
had no disciplinary relations with 
heathens. On the term robs ew, as 
designating those who were not ‘do- 
mestici fidei’ (Col. iv. 5, 1 Thess. iv. 
12; €wOev, 1 Tim. iii. 7), see the notes 
on 1 Tim. iii. 7. The term oi twéev 


110 1 CORINTHIANS. 


kpivete ; rods Sé Ew 6 Ocds xpiver. 


¢ nr > fal 

ULWVY AUTWV. 
How can you dare to 
carry your suits before 
heathens? Let Chris- 
tian judge Christian, 
Wrong doers will not enter God’s kingdom, 


Cuap. V. 12-VI. 1. 


"E€apatre tov wovnpov é& 


lol e lal lal vw % 
VI. Todwa tis tuov mpaypa exw pos 
Tov €repov KplvecOar eri Tov adiKwr, Kal 


13. Efdpare] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very 
greatly preponderating authority: Rec. kai é&dperre. 


is similarly used in Josephus (Be//. 
Jud. IV. 3), and as in contrast to oiketos 
see Kypke, Oéss. Vol. 11. p, 198. 

ovXl Tots tow K.t.A.] ‘Zs 2t not those 
within that you judge?’ Justification 
of the foregoing question: ‘just as 
you (iuets) confine your judgments to 
your brethren and fellow-Christians, 
so do I; and, accordingly, so was my 
judicial command to be limited.’ With- 
out taking «pivew as ‘pro condemnato 
habere’ (Erasmus), it is obvious, from 
the context that xpivei here involves 
the idea of a judgment, presumably zz 
malam partem. It is from the context 
that this otherwise purely neutral word 
takes its local hue; comp. the examples 
in Cremer, Worterd. s.v. p. 371. 

13. Tovs St tw «.7.d.] ‘ But them that 
are without God judgeth ;’ ethical pres- 
ent: so Erasmus, Beza, Rev., Zyreg., 
Westc. and Hort, al.; not fut. ‘shall 
judge ’ (xpwe?, Lachm., Tisch.), Vulg., 
Arm., al., the present marking, with 
much more force and solemnity, the 
changeless attribute of God, the true 
Kpitns mavtwv, Heb. xii. 23. On this 
pres., aptly termed by Kriiger (Strack. 
§ 53. 1) the ‘allzeitiges Prisens,’ as 
serving to mark duration without ref- 
erence to a beginning or ending, and 
thence, by a natural transition, what is 
changeless and unalterable, see Winer, 
Gr.§ 40. 2. a, Schmalfeld, Syzzt. 54. 2, 
Bernhardy, Syzz. X. 2, p. 371. It does 
not seem probable that this clause is 
here to be taken interrogatively (Zach- 
mann, Rev., Hofmann, al.), the whole 
tenor of the context seeming to point 


to two antithetical questions, and then 
the grave enunciation. *Efdpart<] 
‘Put away, Remove ;’ without any 
connecting particle, and so emphati- 
cally summing up the command im- 
plied in ver. 2 sq., and almost exactly 
in the very words of the old Law, xa} 


> 


eEapeis Tov movnpdy e& bua@y adtay, Deut. 
xxiv. 7. The movnpéds, however, in this 
last citation, is one found guilty of a 
great though different sin, — stealing 
and selling one of his brethren. Hof- 
mann, somewhat perversely (the ma- 
jority of expositors taking the more 
obvious view) regards roy movnpéy as 
referring not to the incestuous man, 
but to the offender in each case that 
came before them. 


VI. 1-11. Reproof for bringing their 
differences before heathen courts, and 
Sor the spirit that led to this course. 

1. Todpa tis tpov] ‘ Dare any one of 
you ;’ tTbdAuns éo7) Td Tpayua Kal Tapavo-' 
utas, Chrys.; comp. Valck. Scho/. Vol. 
II. p. 186, who rightly observes that the 
idea of taking upon oneself (sustinzere) 
is both by derivation and usage to be 
traced in the word. On the derivation, 
see Curtius, Ztym. § 236, p. 199. An- 
other and more general case now calling 
for the Apostle’s notice, what follows 
is not linked with what precedes by 
any connecting particle. Whether any 
particular case was in the Apostle’s 
mind at the time, or whether the tis is 
used with a merely general reference, 
cannot be determined from anything 
in the context. The moral question 


Cuap. VI. 1, 2. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


car 


> \ > \ la) e / 2 A > 1S. v e cA \ ’ 
ouxl S7Tl TMV AYLOWY ; 4 OVK OLOATE OTL OL AYLOL TOV KOGLLOV 


2. h ovx] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly 


prepond:rating authority: Rec. omits %. 


under what circumstances a Christian 
may rigitly appeal to the law, is dis- 
cussed i1 Rothe, Zheol. Zthik, § 923, 
Vol. Iv. p. 44 sq. (ed. 2). 

mpaypna ™pos Tov Erepov] ‘a matter 
against iis neighbor, ze. ‘alegal matter 
or case.’ sensu forensi. Grimm ad- 
duces Xen. AZem. 11. 9. 1, Demosth. 
p. 1120, and Josephus, Azzzg. XIV. Io. 
7s , kplver Oar] ‘vo Zo law ;’ so 
perhaps ii 
ge (‘when tiou comest into judgment’)’; 
comp. Maf\. v. 40, and see Cremer, 
Weorterb. s.% p. 371. 
G8ikov K.7.A. fh ‘before the unrighteous, 
and not nee saints ;’ érl having 
here the second\of its two primary 
ideas (‘superposition, combined with 
the idea of proximity, Donaldson, Crat. 
§ 172; comp. Curtius, Ztym. § 334), as 
in Mark xiii. 9, Acts xxiv. 19, xxv. 9, 
Xxvi. 2, I Tim. v. 19, al.; see Harrison, 
Greek Prepos. p. 272 sq. (Philadelphia, 
1860), where this usage of the prep. is 
very carefully analyzed. The contrast 
between the two parties before whom 
the xpivec@a is to take place suggests 
that the process in the two cases would 
be different; before the heathen it 
would be according to the legal forms 
then prevailing; before the saints it 
would be in the form of arbitration 
(comp. ver. 5, and see notes). On the 
uses of the term &y:o (here, probably, 
as the use in ver. 2 seems to suggest, 
members of a spiritual community), 
see notes oz “ph. i. 1, and comp. 
Pearson, Creed, Art. 1X. Vol. 1. p. 417 
(Oxf. 1843). The question of the law- 
fulness of going to law, especially in 
connection with this chapter, is well 
discussed by Hammond, Practical Cat- 
echism, I. 9, p. 161 (A.-C. Libr.). On 


Rom. iii. 4, év T@ xptvecOal 








éml Tav 


the propriety of spiritual persons acting 
as judges, see Hooker, Zcc/. Pol. vu. 
iy Sh 

2. % ovdk oiSare] ‘Or know ye not?’ 
‘Are ye so bold, ov, if it be not bold- 
ness, so ignorant?’ In this formula, 
which occurs four times in this single 
chapter (see ver. 9, 16, 19, Rom. ix. 21, 
xy 2, 2) Cor. xu, 55 Comp, 1; Cor. ix. 
8) and always marks an emphatic in- 
terrogation, sometimes not without a 
tinge of indignation, each particle has 
its proper force. The disjunctive 7 
refers to some foregoing expression (as 
here) or to some thought which is con- 
tained in, and can easily be traced in, 
the context: ‘rem in vulgus notam, et 
quam nescire turpe sit afferi indicat,’ 
Fritzsche, 77 Rom. vi. 3, Vol. 1. p. 357. 
Tov Kdcpov Kpivotew] ‘shall judge the 
world ;’ at the last day, and as sitting 
with their Lord in His judgment; 
comp. Matt, xix. 28, Luke xxii. 30, 
where, however, only Jews are referred 
to. Here it is extended to the whole 
non-Christian world: comp. Wisdom 
ili. 8, kpivodor [Sixaiwy Wuxal, ver. 1] €6vn 
kal Kparhoovot Aa@v; comp. Dan. vii. 
22, Kptua €Owkev aytors. The &y.o, after 
they themselves have risen and been 
judged (ferhaps at an earlier time; 
comp. Dorner, Chr. Doctr. § 152. I, 
Vol. Iv. p. 389, note), will sit as the 
‘assessores, testes, et comprobatores 
judicii’ (comp. Grot.): see Platt, Glau- 
benslehre, § 77, Vol. 1. p. 349, Rothe, 
Dogmatik, WU. 2.9, Vol. 1. p. 53. The 
attempt to explain this away by a | 
reference to Matt. xii. 41, 42 (Chrys., 
Theodoret, a!.) as a judgment kar 
mapddeow (Theod.-Mops.), is here in- 
consistent with the plain tenor of the 
whole passage, in which all the terms 


112 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. VI. 2, 3. 


a lal £ > / / . 
Kpwovow ; Kal eb év tuiv KpiveTat 0 KOcpos, avaklol éote Kpi- 


/ b / 8 ? ” 24 bd I lo / 
Tnpiov édhaylotwv ; 2 ovK oldate OTL ayyéhous KpwWovpev ; paTLYE 


are used in their natural and primary 
judicial sense: see Calvin 7x doc. 

Kal ei «1.A.] ‘ And—if the world is 
judged by (before) you ;’ the kat with 
its ordinary ascensive force introducing 
with some emphasis the question, and 
marking the justness by way of conse- 
quence, of putting it; see Hartung, 
Partik. Vol. 1. p. 147, Kihner. Gr. § 
521. 3. A similar, but not identical 
use of kai may be observed in Phil. i. 
22; see notes zz Joc. It is difficult 
here to express correctly the exact 
meaning of évy. It is not simply equiv- 
alent to 76 (Raphel, Azzot. Vol. 11. p. 
325); still less has it any ethical mean- 
ing (‘by your example,’ Theoph.) ; it 
appears chosen as marking the ‘con- 
sessus’ (Kypke) 7 which, and so, in 
effect, before which, the kpiois took 
place ; see Winer, Gr. § 48. 1. d, and 
the examples collected by Kypke, Odss. 
Vol. II. p. 199; comp. also notes oz 
COL 1.23, avat.ol éore K.T.A,] 
‘are ye unworthy of the smallest courts?’ 
and so, derivatively, ‘of holding or 
passing judgment in such.’ The word 
KpiThpiov, as its termination indicates 
(Kitihner, Gr. § 330. 5), implies either 
(az) ‘locus ubi judicium habetur,’ James 
ii. 6, Susann. 49, or (4) ‘instrumentum 
quo aliquid exploratur, seu judicatur,’ 
Diod. Sic. I. 72, «pithpiov 1 av év TG Biw 
mpaxOevtwy (cited in Cremer, Wérterd. 
S.v. p. 375). The first meaning seems 
here the more natural and the most in 
harmony with ver. 4: so rightly Arm., 
which in each case adopts a word 
meaning ‘court’ or ‘tribunal’; comp. 
Eth. The meaning, at any rate, is 
quite clear, and is correctly expressed 
in substance by Vulg., ‘ indigni estis qui 
de minimetis judicetis,’ Clarom.’ Syr., 
‘judiciorum minimorum :’ comp. Copt., 
Auth., Rev. The translation ‘ causes’ 


(Wordsw.) is not in accordance with 
the lexical usage of the word. 

3. od« olSarek.e.d.] ‘ Av0w ye not that 
we shall judge angels ?’ further carrying 
out of the thought of ver. 2; the elect 
will hereafter judge not only men but 
angels. Who theseangels are can only 
be inferred from the context. Just as 
in 2 Pet. ii. 4 the anarthrous ayyéAwy 
receives its proper hue from tae asso- 
ciated participle (‘when they sinned,’ 
Rev.), so here the whole ter.or of the 
passage excludes the idea of those 
angels, who, we have no occasion what- 
ever from Scripture to ‘believe, will 
come under any form of future xpiots, 
but will themselves rataer take part in 
it: consider Matt. xii. 41, and comp. 
xvi. 27, xxv. 31. Vve cannot therefore 
hesitate, with all the early expositors, 
to limit the word here to the ev 
angels,— of some at least of whom it 
is specially said that they are awaiting 
their judgment ; see Jude 6. To press 
kpivew here, as something which, by 
the circumstances of the case, must 
only refer to a meum and tuum, and to 
understand by the mysterious clause 
some vague reference to future relations 
between the saints and angels in the 
Redeemer’s future kingdom (Hof- 
mann), is to do violence to all sober 
principles of interpretation. If the 
whole context does imply a reference 
to a future judgment on which an @ 
fortiort argument is founded, then 
surely that kpiois must be the only 
xptots about which we have any knowl- 
edge, the xplots peydAns juepas. In 
this, to its full extent, whether over 
angels or men, the saints ‘shall co- 
operate and take a part,’ Nitzsch. Chr. 
Doctr. § 219. On this text, see a 
*‘Concio ad Clerum’ by Lightfoot, 
Works, Vol. vi. p. 83 sqq., and for 


—— 
z= 


Cuap. VI. 3, 4 


1 CORINTHIANS. 118 


Buorind. *Buatixd pev odv xpitiypia ay éxnte, Tors eEovOevy- 


, b] lel > / A = ‘ 
pévous EV TH EXKANTLA, TOUTOUS Kabifere. 


references on the subject of angels 
generally, notes on ch. iv. 9. 
pirrye Riwtixa] ‘20 say nothing at all of 
things of this life ;’ concluding clause 
dependent on, but not included in, the 
foregoing question; so rightly Zachm., 
De Wette, Meyer, al. On the com- 
pound particle wArvye (‘nedum,’ and 
so, according to the context, ‘multo 
magis,’ or ‘multo minus’), see Her- 
mann, Viger, No. 266, Klotz, Devar. 
Vol. 1. p. 137, Hartung, Partik. Vol. 11. 
p. 155. In this form the ye has its 
proper force (‘semper aliquid cogita- 
tione adsumendum est, etiam si id 
levissuma oppositione et celeri cogita- 
tione fieri debet,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. 
p- 276) : it sharpens the conclusion (‘to 
say nothing indeed, when so much 
might be said,’ ‘nedum quidem’): and 
enhances the force of the comparison ; 
see Hartung, Partik, Vol. I. p. 364, and 
comp. notes on ch. iv. 8. The 
exact shade of meaning of Biwtikds is 
slightly doubtful: it may mean in a 
general sense, xatd rdv Bloy TovTov, 
Theod.-Mops., comp. Vulg. (‘szcu- 
laria’), Copt. (‘opera hujus vite’), 
Eth. (‘hujus mundi’), or, more par- 
ticularly, ‘ad rem familiarem_perti- 
nentes,’ Schweigh. Lex. Polyb. s. vy 
comp. Luke viii. 43. The use of the 
word in Luke xxi. 34 (xpaumddn kad 
BeOn Kad pepiuvas Biwtixais), and the 
present context, in which the meum 
and ¢wum idea is obviously predomi- 
nant, seem in favor of the latter 
meaning: comp. Polyb. 7st. Iv. 73. 8, 
Bwwtikal xpeia. The word is used 
apparently first by Aristotle, but is 
very common in later Greek: see 
Lobeck, Piry2. p. 355+ 

4. Brorixd piv ody K.t.A.] ‘Uf then 
ye verily have courts pertaining to this 
life, ‘if ye are really so circumstanced 


* 


5 Wy > \ ig a“ 
TpOS EVTPOTIVY ULL 


as to be obliged to have such tribunals ;’ 
the word Biwrikd being repeated with 
emphasis, and the uéy ov, with its 
continuative and retrospective force 
(‘cum quadam conclusionis significa- 
tione, Hermann, Viger, No. 342; 
compare Biumlein, Partzk. p. 181 sq), 
carrying out the thought suggested by 
the last clause.. In this combination 
the wéy ‘rem prasentem confirmat ;’ 
the ody ‘conclusionem ex rebus ita 
comparatis conficit;’ Klotz. Devarius, 
Vol. 11. p. 663; see notes oz Phil. iii. 
8. The corrective force of these 
particles (Donalds. Gv. § 567) appears 
in the N. T. more clearly under the 
longer form pevodvye as in Rom. ix. 20, 
x. 18. There is here (opp. to Alf.), as 
the context shows, no corrective force: 
the command follows on what has been 
already implied, and is based upon 
it. tovs eEovlevypévous k.T.A.] 
‘set them to judge who are held of no 
accountin the Church ;’ imperative, and 
with reference to those who were 
members of the Church, but of little 
esteem in it: so Vulg., Syr., Copt., 
Arm., the Greek expositors, and several 
recent interpreters. The meaning 
then will be, ‘if you must have these 
tribunals, appoint as judges men of 
your own Christian community, and of 
least account among you; those 
really of account will have something 
better to do;’ the reference here being 
to litigation before a judge, in ver. 6 
to wise and peaceful arbitration. Ac- 
cording to the alternative interpretation, 
kadiere is taken as indicative, and 
interrogatively, tods éfovlevnu. being 
referred to the heathen judges: so 
Tisch., Westc. and Hort, De Wette, al. 
To this latter interpretation there are 
the grave objections,— (1) that ca@i¢ere 
is a term very inapplicable to judges 


114 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. VI. 4-6. 


Aéyw. ofTws ove Eve ev div ovdels codds, bs Suvnoetar Svaxpivas 
ava pécov Tov adeApod adtod; Sara adeAPes peta adeAod 


5. et ev buiv ovdels copes] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort: 
the é resting on very clearly, and the ovdels on greatly, preponderating au- 


thority: Rec. @orw év buiv copds ovse eis. 


already appointed, and actually sitting 
as such; (2) that rods étouvevnuévous 
év TH éxkAnola is a harsh term for the 
Apostle to use in reference to the 
heathen (contrast ch. v. 12), whereas 
in the application to Christians the 
language is that of indignation and 
wrong (kadamrrduevos avtay, Chrys.), and 
so not out of place. The heathen 
were @iwOev, but not éfovbevnucva. It 
thus seems best to maintain the early 
and traditional interpretation above 
specified. The rovrovs, as its 
position shows, is emphatic, and con- 
centrates the attention on the foregoing 
Tous ékovOev.: see Kiihner, Gr. § 460. 4, 
Kriiger, Sprachl. § 51. 7. 5 (comp. § 51. 
5. 1), and notes ov Gal. iii. 7. 

5: mpdos évtpomiv tpiv éyw] ‘7 say 
this 4o you to move you to shame ;’ with 
reference to the foregoing clause, as in 
ch. xv. 34. To refer this clause to 
what follows weakens the force of the 
indignant question, and leaves the 
somewhat unusual command in ver. 4 
without the explanatory comment 
which this clause seems expressly de- 
signed to supply: so Theodorus (Cram. 
Cat.), Cicum., and apparently also 
Chrys., who prefixes totro. 
ottws ovK evi K.7.A.] § Zs zt so that there 
7s no wise man among you?’ the ottws 
marking simply the state of things 
(‘quum he ita sint’) which existed 
in the Corinthian Church; comp. 
Hermann, Viger, Append. x. p. 748 
(London, 1824). Chrysostom and 
others regard the o¥rws as intensifying 
the assumption, and marking the com- 
pleteness of the lack which the Apostle 
was forced to believe existed among 


them, ‘Is there so utterly a lack of 
wise men,’ etc., Tocaltn omduis avopav 
ouvetav map juiv; Chrys. (comp. notes 
on Gal. iii. 1); but the objection seems 
decisive,— that thus an apodosis would 
seem to be wanting. It is not so much 
the degree of the lack, as the fact of it, 
on which the Apostle bases his ques- 
tion. 8s Suvqcerar Siakptvar] 
‘who shall be able (whenever the case 
arises) to decide ;’ the reference being 
here to arditration. Such a mode of 
deciding questions was not unknown to 
the Jews (see especially Lightfoot, Hor. 
fHebr. in loc.), and, if not formally 
adopted from them by Christians, was, 
at any rate, such a mode of deciding 
questions as ought at once to suggest 
itself to men who, in any true sense, 
were adeAgol. The use of the singular 
(‘between his brother ’ and the brother 
complained of by him), is apparently 
to mark the individual dealing with 
each case which was to characterize 
true Christian arbitration. It was not 
to be a matter of courts and precedents, 
but of personal and individual investi- 
gation. 

6. dAAG aBSeAdds k.T.A.] 
brother goeth to law with brother ;’ 
sharp antithesis to the thought con- 
tained in the foregoing question, aAA& 
having here its fundamental meaning 
(‘aliud hoc esse, de quo sumus dicturi,’ 
Klotz. Devar. Vol. Il. p. 2) sharply 
enunciated; see Klotz. p. 11, Hartung, 
Partik. Vol. i. p. 36, Baumlein, Partiz. 
p- 1osq. The punctuation adopted by 
some recent editors according to which 
&AAd would be in its ordinary sequence 
to the negation in ver. 5, and the 


‘Nay,—. 


if 


Cuap. VI. 6-7. 


KpiveTat, Kal TOUTO éTL amioTwV. 
lal > nr 
_tpiv eotw OTe Kpipata éxete pel” EavTov. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


115 


7 Hdn pév odv GAwS HTTHUAa 
Sia Ti ovyxi wadXov 


7. tu] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on vastly pre- 


ponderating authority: Rec., ev duiv. 


question postponed to the end of the 
present verse (so fev.), is grammati- 
cally tenable, but less in harmony with 
the sharp, indignant tone which marks 
these verses: comp. ver. 8. To make 
this verse a second question (7Zyeg. al.) 
is open to the same objection; the 
question dilutes the force of the directly- 
enunciated fact and of the involved 
censure. Kal rotro] ‘and this 
too,— the kal with its ascensive force 
(‘et quidem ;’ see notes ov Phil. iv. 12) 
throwing its emphasis on the retro- 
spective rovto, and (as in Rom. xiii. 
II; comp. Eph. ii. 8, Phil. i. 28) adding 
a further and enhancing particular; 
compare the more common ka} Tatta 
(Heb. xi. 12) of the classical writers, 
and see exx. in notes to Viger, /dot. Iv. 
16, p. 176 (Lond. 1824), Hartung, 
Partik. Vol. 1. p. 146. Not only was 
there direct litigation (instead of 
brotherly arbitration) but litigation in 
heathen courts: ei yap kal Ka@ éavTd Td 
mpayua audprnua Td mpds adeApoy 
KpiverOa, Td Kad em) ekwrik@y molay exe 
ovyyveunyv ; Chrys. 27 loc. 

7- 45 pev odv K.t.d.] ‘ Verily there is 
at once quite a falling short in you,’ scil. 
“you are at once much the worse for it 
in regard of spiritual blessings’ (see 
below) ; the #5 here, with its logical, 
but still definitely underlying temporal 
force (reference to a result prior to 
what might have been looked for; see 
Heller, cited by Kiihner, Gr. § 499. 1, 
foot-note), sharply directing the thought 
to the state of things to which the 
Apostle had just referred (‘brother 
going to law with brother, and that too 
before unbelievers,’ ver. 6), and en- 
hancing the continuative and retro- 


Idiom requires the prep. in translation. 


spective uéy ody,—on which see notes 
on ver. 4. The meaning, especially of 
H5n, is fairly brought out by Chrys., 
uy tolvuy A€ye, Tis HOiknoev ; évTEedOev 
yap 48n oe karaxpivw ard Tod Sind CeoOa. 
In regard of #5, and its difference 
from viv (on which see notes oz 2 Zim. 
iv. 6), it may be remarked that while 
viv, as its very derivation suggests 
[véFov; Sanscr. zz], refers primarily 
and mainly to present time, #6y, ety- 
mologically considered (Donaldson, 
Cratyl. § 202; but see also Curtius, 
Ltym. p. 561), seems to mark ‘ nearness 
to the ere,’ and thence derivatively, 
‘nearness to the zow:’ the further idea 
of ‘priority to that sow,’ or, generally, 
‘priority to what might have been 
supposed,’ emerges naturally, and 
seems to constitute the underlying 
meaning of tuais somewhat difficult 
particle. It here marks idiomatically 
logical proximity and immediateness 
(Vulg., ‘jam’), and may be rendered 
as above, though with some loss of 
the exact shade of force which the 
particle seems here to convey: see 
Kihner, Gr. § 499. 2, and comp. Klotz, 
Devar. Vol. 11. p. 600 sq., Hartung, 
Partik. Vol... p. 240 sq., and Biiumlein, 
Partik. p. 38 sqq., by whom, however, 
the essential force of the particle 
seems a little lost sight of. 

Arrynpa] ‘falling short, ‘ detrimentum,’ 
Copt., ‘loss,’ Rev. (Marg.); scil. of 
spiritual fulness, or, more probably, 
of the blessings of God’s kingdom; 
comp. ver. 9. The usual rendering 
‘fault,’ Auth., ‘delictum,’ Vulg. (comp. 
Syr., 4ith., Arm.), does not harmonize 
so well with the context nor with the 
general meaning of the word, in which 


116 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. VI. 7-9. 


abixeiobe ; Sua Ti ovyl paddov arrootepeicbe; ® adda vpels 


2 a a > a \ la] ? / 
aouKelre Kal atrooTeEpElTe, Kat TOUTO adEAPoUs. 


9x > 7 
 OvK oloarte, 


br. ddvcor Ocod Bacrrelav ov KAnpovoyncovow ; Mn mravace: 


A Lf a ? id 
oUTE TropvoL oUTE ElOwAOAATPAL 


” \ + \ LA 
OUTE MOLYOL OUTE MaNAKOL OUTE 


8. rovto] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, with very greatly 


preponderating authority: Rec. tava. 


Q. @eot Bacirciav] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very 
greatly preponderating authority: Rec. BaotAclay Ocod. 


the idea of ‘ defeat ’ (comp. the classical 
ftta, opp. to vixn, Plato, Laches, p. 
196 A.), without any ethical tinge, ap- 
pears distinctly predominant: comp. 
Rom. xi. 12 and the comments of 
Origen (Caz.) on this passage, where 
ntTac0u is contrasted with vingv: see 
Grimm, Lex. s.v. 
é€auvtwv] ‘lawsuits with each other ;’ 
literally ‘ your own selves,’ the pronoun 
being apparently expressly chosen to 
mark the injurious effects of the liti- 
gation to each member of the Church ; 
it was in truthahome injury. On this 
use of the pronoun, see Kihner, Gr. 
§ 455. 8. &Sixeto Oe — atrowre- 
pet be] ‘take wrong—suffer yourselves 
to be defrauded, ‘injuriam accipitis — 
fraudem patimini,’ Vulg., comp. Syr.; 
the verbs being not in the passive 
(comp. Clarom., ‘fraudamini’), but in 
the middle, as the whole tenor of the 
question implies that the action of the 
verb is to be directed not to other ob- 
jects but to the very subjects of the 
verb themselves. On the essential 
meaning of the middle voice (viz. ‘that 
the subject ‘of the proposition is the 
object, or local limitation, of the ac- 
tion’) see the excellent remarks of 
Donaldson, Gv. 432, and comp. Kihner, 
Gr. 374. I Sq. 

8. GAAG bets] ‘ But you on the con- 
trary; ’? the pronoun being emphatic, 
and the clause expressing the sharp 
contrast between the actual state of 
things and what it ought to be. Meyer 


Kpipara, pe0" 


regards the sentence as a part of 
what precedes, and so included in 
the vinculum of the interrogation. 
This is in itself hard, and contrary to 
the analogy of ver. 6. aderdors] 
‘brethren, —and so, those who ought 
to be treated in a very different way; 
Xarerdy wey yap Kal 7d Toy GAASTpiov 
Gdikeiv, ToAA@ 5€ wA€oy Td Toy oOiKELOY, 
Theodorus. 

Q. 4 od« otSare] ‘ Or know ye not:’ 
‘is it from wilfulness or a real igno- 
rance of the consequences?’ comp. 
ver. 2. The verse thus passes into a 
warning and minatory tone; eis ame:A}y 
KaTakAcleL Thy mapaiverw ioxupdrepoy 
, moa Tov Adyov, Chrys. Ocod 
Bactrelay] ‘ Goa’s kingdom ;’ scil. that 
kingdom which, begun and established 
here, has its fullest development and 
consummation in the future; hence éa- 
0étw 7 BactAcia cov, Matt. vi. 10. On the 
meaning of this inclusive expression, 
comprehending as it does both the pres- 
ent and the future, see the collection of 
examples and the comments in Cremer, 
Weorterb. p. 134 sq., and the notes oz 
Gal. v. 21; comp. also above, notes 
on ch. iv. 20 (1 Cor.). In the form 
Baotrcla T&v ovpayay, the term either 
suggests a contrast to earth and earthly 
hopes and expectations (‘ preecidebatur 
spes regni terreni et invitabantur omnes 
ad cceelestia, Bengel, 2 Jatt. iv. 17), 
or points more prospectively to the 
heavenly home of the future. The 
true BaoiAcla can only be realized ‘ when 


CuHap. VI. 10, 11. 1 CORINTHIANS. 


117 


2 a 10 LA / x / > LQ > 
APC EVOKOLTAL OUTE KAETTAL OUTE TNEOVEKTAL, QU MEeUVUTGOL, OU 
1 Kai 


TaUTa Ties NTE’ GAAA aTreAoVaaTOe, GARG ryLaTOnTe, GANA edu- 


NoidSopar, oly dptrayes Bactreiav Oeod KAnpovoprjcovow. 


10. ob pwéebvoo] So TZisch., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on preponderating au- 
thority (see below) ; Rec., Lachm., Treg., ovte ué0voo. The best authorities are 
here divided. The preponderance, however, is in favor of the text, internal 
evidence being in its favor, and the Vv. (though claimed for ore) really giving 
no real evidence either way. The omission of od (Rec.) before «Anpo- 
vounoovow is supported by nearly all the older authorities, and adopted by 


Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort. 


the fragmentary has given place to the 
perfect,’ Martensen, Chr. Zthics, § 45, 
p- 149 (Transl.). Mi tAavac be} 
‘Be not deceived ;’ passive, as always 
in this formula, and in reference to the 
preceding words; comp. notes oz Gal. 
v. 21. There were only too many in 
Corinth who were ready to suggest 
more hopeful views; see Chrys. zz 
loc. In the enumeration of the 
vices and sins that occupy the re- 
mainder of the verse the Apostle un- 
folds all that is really included in a 
term (%5:01) to which many might have 
assigned a far less comprehensive 
meaning. Of the terms that follow in 
this and the succeeding verse, three 
relate to the worst sins of the flesh, 
with which eiSwAodarpela (including, as 
it naturally would, revels in heathen 
temples) and effeminate luxury [in 
padaxcl, ‘molles,’ Vulg., paraphrastically 
rendered ‘corruptores,’ Syr., there is not 
necessarily the darker meaning given 
to the word by Kypke and others; 
though it may possibly be involved in 
it; comp. Arm.] are here not unnatu- 
rally associated; three relate to sins in 
reference to meum and ‘uw, including 
in their sequence sins (ué0n, Aodopia) 
often, to some extent, mixed up with 
them. There does not, however, seem 
to be any very studied order in the 
enumeration; see Gal. v. 19, and notes 
in loc. Whether this was designedly 
to show how all are fundamentally one 


in principle (Hofmann), may perhaps 
be considered doubtful. 

Il. kal tadra] ‘and such,’ scil. ‘of 
such a class or sort;’ not, however, 
necessarily with any expression of con- 
tempt (Meyer), but as conveniently 
grouping the varied items of the pre- 
ceding enumeration ; see Ktihner, Gr. § 
366, obs. In this formula the context 
may imply a kind of contemptuous 
reference (see Bernhardy, Syz¢. vi. 7. 
p- 28t); but such a reference here 
would seem alien to the serious,gravity 
of the passage; comp. Winer, G”. § 23. 
5. obs. The Apostle, it will be ob- 
served, is careful to notice that some 
only (not necessarily moAAoi, Cicum.) 
fell under this charge, and, further, 
that with them it belonged wholly to 
the past (fre). arehotoac be] 
‘ye washed away (your sins) ;’ mid- 
dle, with reference to their seeking 
baptism, and submitting themselves to 
it; see Acts xxii. 16, and comp. 1 Cor. 
x. 2. The passive translation (Vulg., 
Auth.) may be retained as a rough 
approximation to the meaning, but not 
as implying that there is any real 
passive meaning implied in the tense; 
see Winer, Gr. § 38. 4. 4. 
yao Onre — eSixarsOnre] ‘ye were sanc- 
tified —ye were justified:’ by baptism 
the Corinthian converts were incor- 
porated in the Church of Christ: they 
received the gift of the Holy Ghost 
(Acts ii. 38), were renewed by it (Tit. 


118 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


CHAP, VI. 'T2: 


vd ? a Wee fa) 72 ’ rn ~ ee = 
xawwoOnre €v TS Ovopats ToD Kupiov “Inood Xpiotov Kai é&v To 


td nm A © ip 
IIvetpatt tod Ocod jyov. 


The body is not for for- 
nication, nor are our 


2 Tlavra wo. feotw, GAN ov TavTa cup- 


members to be made those of a harlot. The body is a temple of the Spirit. 


II. "Inood Xpiorod]. So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on 
greatly preponderating authority: Mec. omits Xpirod. 


ili. 5), and so were made @yioz ; ‘ sancti- 
ficatio ad regenerationem pertinet,’ 
Calvin. And this was not all. They 
were also accounted righteous before 
God, and accepted into a state of favor 
with Him,— justification being closely 
connected with Holy Baptism (Tit. iii. 
7), and being due to the grace of God 
as dispensed (to the faithful and 
repentant) in that sacrament; see 
Barrow, Serm. v. Vol. Iv. p. 386 (Oxf. 
1830), Waterland, Justification, Vol. VI. 
p- 10 (Oxf. 1843), and comp. Jackson, 
Creed, Iv. 6, Vol. III. p. 297, where it 
is rightly said that ‘ all persons bap- 
tized may be accounted justified, in 
the same sense they are dead to sin.’ 
Barrow properly calls attention to the 
aorist (here and Rom. v. 1) as specify- 
ing a definite time, viz. ‘at their en- 
trance into Christianity,’ but he is not 
exact in regarding, either here or Eph. 
v. 25, 26, sanctification as ‘importing 
the same thing with justification.’ 
The true dependence, viz. ‘that the 
first part of sanctification, the beginning 
of a new life,’ must precede justifica- 
tion, is stated with clearness and pre- 
cision by Hammond, Practical Cate- 
chism, 1. 4, p. 79 (A.-C. Libr.) ; comp. 
Messner, Lehre der Apfostel, p. 259. 
The life of Christians begins with a 
hallowing movement proceeding from 
the Spirit (Harless, Chr. Ethics. § 25, 
p- 226, Clark), and continues as true 
life only in so far as He vouchsafes to 
abide in the heart and to develop that 
movement. In this Epistle, however, 
the ‘ordo salutis’ is not set forth with 
any studied precision (comp. Calvin iz 


Zoc.), its main purpose being corrective 
rather than soteriological ; see Philippi, 
Glaubenslehre, Part v. 1, p. 272 sq. 
The thrice repeated add (‘aliud jam 
hoc esse, quod sumus dicturi,’ Klotz, 
Devar. Vol. Ul. p. 2) enhances and 
gives rhetorical force to each state- 
ment in the contrast; see Wilke, 
Neutest. Rhetorik, § 124, p. 398. 

év T@ dvépate K.T.r.] ‘22 the name of 
the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit 
of our God ;’ clearly to be joined with 
the three preceding members, the whole 
clause specifying the holy spheres of 
divine agency (comp. Mark xvi. 17, 
Luke x. 17, Acts ii: 16, I0,- iv. 7, 10, 
and see notes oz 1 Thess. iv. 18) with 
which the washing, sanctifying, and 
justifying stood in causal connection. 
There is here no such studied precision 
of language as to justify our assigning 
év T@ Ovéuart K.T.A. to one of the pre- 
ceding verbs and év r@ Mvevuare x.7.A. 
to another. The spiritual state in 
which, by God’s grace, the Corinthians 
now were, is emphatically recited ; then, 
in a concluding clause, the divine 
spheres of operation, in which and by 
which it was brought about. 


12—20. Resumption of the subject of 
Sornication : the false arguments used to 
excuse it, and the true deadly nature of 
the sin. 

12. Ildvra pow tkerrw] ‘ Al] things 
are lawful for me,’ or, if it be con- 
sidered desirable to maintain the 
Tapovouacia in the second clause of the 
verse,— ‘all things are in my power ;’ 
scil. all things that are morally, and on 


i iy. 


Cuap. VI. 12-13. 


WeORIN THEANS:. 


119 


déper* mavta por eat, GAN ovK éyw é€ovaracOyjcopar bo 


\ , a 4 \ e / lal / \ 
twos. Bra Bpwpata TH Koidig, Kal 1) KoLALa Tos Bpwyacw 


c \ \ \ A \ a / 
0 d€ Meds cal TavTnY Kal TaVTa KaTapynoeL. 


true Christian grounds, to be accounted 
as Gdidpopa ; see Sanderson (in his ex- 
cellent sermon on ch. x. 23), Serm. XI. 
(ad Aulam), p. 508 (Lond. 1686). The 
principle maintained by the Apostle 
(see ch. x. 23), and set forth generally 
in his teaching, had been apparently 
perverted in its application by members 
of the Corinthian Church. It has 
been doubted whether the sentiment 
is thus to be referred to the Apostle, 
or whether it may not be considered a 
sentiment known by the Apostle to 
have been used and based on the 
principle that if it be not wrong to 
gratify one appetite why should it be 
wrong to gratify another? Such a 
view is possible, but there is certainly 
no one of the usual indications that 
we have here the sentiment of oppo- 
nents, nor can we, on such an 
hypothesis, readily explain the aaa’ ob 
mdvta ouupépe. If we have the 
Apostle’s words, brought up by him 
here, because known to have been 
misused, the limitation is at once 
intelligible and natural. The Apostle 
had been misunderstood in reference to 
a statement he had made (ch. v. 9); 
here was another and a far graver case, 
because one of deliberate perversion. 

The personal pronoun po has here 
obviously an inclusive reference to 
Christians generally. It expresses 
with point and force a statement of 
general application : comp. ver. 15, viii. 
135 235120, 30, AV Tl and isee 
Sanderson, Zoc. ct. p. 517 (Lond. 1686). 

GAN od TavTa cupdhéepe] ‘but not all 
are profitable ;’ scil. morally profitable 
and advantageous (od AvarreAe?, Theod.), 
with general reference to all in any 
way concerned. In ch. x. 23 the 7d 


\ \ na > 
TO O€ Gua ov 


avupepov is more precisely stated under 
the form of oikodoun. ovK eyo 
«.T.A.] ‘bet L will NOT be brought under 
the power of anything ;’ of any practice 
or anything in which I use my éfousta: 
‘tiwds, ulla re. Neutrum, ut mdvra,’ 
Bengel. There is no strong emphasis 
on the éyé (‘xox ego! alius audeat per 
me,’ Bengel): the éyé simply answers 
to the preceding po: ‘The really em- 
phatic word is ov«; comp. Acts vii. 48, 
and see Winer, Gr. § 61. 5. What 
the Apostle says is, that the efovota of 
the Christian must never so be used 
that the matter or practice to which it 
extends prove in the sequel to be of 
over-mastering influence; the free, 
must not become the fettered, will; 
comp. Martensen, Chr. Ethics, § 31 sq. 
On the nature of our Christian liberty, 
see Sanderson, Se. v. (ad Populum), 
p- 241 (Lond. 1686). 

13. Ta Bpdpara «.7.d.] ‘meats are 
Sor the belly ;’ appertain to, are intended 
for: the kota is designed to be their 
brodoxh. The word xoAla has here its 
ordinary and primary meaning, not 
yaotpiapyia (Chrys.): see Suicer, 
Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 11. p. 119. These 
things, the xoila and the Bpdéuata, 
have relation by way of purpose to 
each other; no such relation exists 
between the o@ua and ropyefa; compare 
Origen (Cram. Cat.) 27 loc. 6 8é 
@cds «.7.d.] ‘duet (in contrast and con 
tinuation; not ‘eleganter pro evzm,’ 
Bengel) God will bring to nought both 
it and them ;’ viz. by death and organic 
change. The first point in the example 
before us is, that the two things 
specified stood in a natural and 
designed relation to each other; the 
second, that the things are transitory 


120 1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap, VI. 13-15. 


/ an 
Th Topvela, adda TH Kupip, Kai 6 Kvpws 76 copati: “6 &é 


Oecos Kai tov Kipuov Hryewpev Kai jas eLeyeped S:a THs Suvdwews 


avuTov. 


1 ob« oldate OTL TA CHmAaTA LuUoV wékn XpioTtod éoTwW ; 


14. juas] L/z. duds, but only with the support of a few mss. 


and perishable, and that, by the will 
and action of their Creator. In the 
alleged parallel case it was widely 
different; the o@ua was not designed 
for mopvela, nor was it created karap- 
yeto8a, but petacxnuati€ec@a (see 
Phil. iii, 20). The deduction from 
this present clause would obviously be, 
that these perishable things, as having 
no relation to the moral and enduring 
personality, might properly be regarded 
as abdidpopa: ‘que destruentur, per se 
liberum habeant usum,’ Bengel. 

7d 8 capa K.t.d.] ‘but the body is not 
Sor fornication ;’ contrasted relation of 
the things now mentioned with what 
had preceded; 8¢ having its usual 
antithetical force, and marking the 
contrast between the oa@ua and the 
kolAia, between the whole, with all its 
mysterious future, and the earthly and 
perishable part. The body is for the 
Lord; for, as the Apostle says below 
(ver. 15), our bodies are members of 
Christ. Kal 6 Kipuos to cdpare] 
‘and the Lord for the body ;’ scil. to 
use as an instrument for His service. 
He who both sanctifies by His spirit, 
and, finally glorifies, the body (Phil. iii. 
20), vouchsafes to stand to it in such a 
relation as to be in a certain sense for 
it, even as it is for Him: ‘quanta 
dignatio,’ Bengel. 

14. 6 8 Oeds K.7.A.] ‘but God both 
raised up the Lord, and will raise up us 
(also) by His power ;’ the ral—ral 
placing the raising up of the Lord and 
the raising up of us His redeemed, in 
closest relation and interdependence. 
This clause stands in parallelism to 6 
dé @eds .7.A. in verse 13, and marks by 
contrast the totally different circum- 


stances of the mere physical part that 
was designed to perish, and the 
mysterious whole that was to be raised 
up and to be changed (ch. xv. 52). 
There does not seem to be any very 
certain distinction between the #yepey 
and the éfeyepe? (‘de primitiis .... de 
mass& dormientium,’ Bengel), the 
tendency to composition without any 
clear addition of meaning being one of 
the characteristics of laterGreek. The 
compound occurs only here and Rom. 
ix. 17; the simple form (in reference to 
the resurrection) very frequently, and 
equally with reference to our Lord 
and to the dead generally Sua 
Tis Suvdpews avdtrod] This clause may 
refer to both verbs, but is more 
naturally connected only with éeeyepe?. 
It was to the latter clause rather than 
to the former that (in Corinth es- 
pecially) words indirectly confirming 
the declaration (‘Quis ergo dubitet? 
Deus est omnipotens,’ Bengel) were 
instinctively added: 7 Sdvauis rod cod 
MeydAa KaTopboica Kal todTo morjoe, 
Theoph. 

15. Ovk olSare k.t.d.] ‘Know ye not 
that your bodies are members of Christ ;’ 
very portions of Him who is the Head, 
and with whom the whole body of the 
faithful, and so each true member of 
that body, is closely and organically 
united: see Eph. iv. 16. The present 
verse repeats in another form, and 
substantiates, the ground-thought, 7d 
caua TS Kuplw (ver. 13): the heathen 
and half-heathen view was, 7d ca@ua 
kowby mpds Ta (Ha (Epict. Dissert. 1. 3. 
1); the Christian view, 7d c@ua wédos 
Tov Xpicrov; comp. Harless, Chr. 
Ethics, § 44, p. 360 sq. (Transl.). 


— 


Cnap. VI. 15, 16. 


1 CORINTHIANS. y 4 | 


” Lo \ I a nr , i? , X 
apas ovv Ta méd\n TOV Xpictov Trownow TOpyns MEAN; pn 


ryéVOLTO. 


dpas otv «.t.r.) ‘ Having taken away 
then the members of Christ ;’ circumstan- 
tial participial clause (see Kiihner, Gr. § 
389. ¢), marking by the use of the 
verb &pas the deliberate and wilful 
nature of the act, 7d amoomaca Ta MeAn 
Tod Xpiorov (Theoph.), and the making 
them péeAn mépyns: ‘summa in hoc 
participio inest evdpyeim, indignitatem 
rei quasi depingens,’ Bengel. It may 
be doubted whether moijow is the de- 
liberative subj. (Winer, Gv. § 41. 4. 2), 
or the future of ethical possibility 
(Winer, Gr. § 40. 6). The latter is 
perhaps slightly more probable, the 
distinction, in such ambiguous cases, 
appearing to turn upon the greater or 
less tinge of futurity that seems to be 
involved in the clause. Here the &pas 
seems to be regarded as prior to the 
movnow, and so to point rather to the 
future : consider Eurip. /oz, 771 (quoted 
by Winer) cfrwpuev, 2} ovyGpev, 4 cl 
dpacouey ; where the change of mood is 
perhaps to be explained on the above 
principle. pH) yévouro] § Fur be 
z/? On the use of this interjec. 
formula as rebutting the inference 
drawn, or the statement made, by an 
adversary, see notes o7 Gal. ii. 18. 

16. 4 ovk olSare] ‘Or know ye not ;’ 
second proof of the main position — 
that fornication cannot be regarded, 
like the use of Bpduara, as something 
merely a&d5idpopov,— the 7 not referring 
either to the wh yévorro (Meyer), or to 
the strong expression mépyns wéAn, (De 
Wette), but simply serving to introduce 
a second and even stronger form of 
argument. The Christian who has 
thus sinned, not only took the méan 
Xpiorod and made them wédAn of the 
mépyn, but became a single c@ua with 


her. 6 KohAdpevos TH Tépvy] 
‘he that cleaveth to the harlot’ (with 
16 


16 x > wv fig c 7, lal 4 a a / 
) ovK oidate OTL O KOANMEVOS TH TOPYN EY CHpd 


whom for the time he is sinning). The 
strong word KoAAdo@a (comp. Suicer, 
Thesaur. Vol. 11. p. 134) is studiously 
chosen as occurring in its compound 
form in the passage alluded to (Gen. ii. 
24; comp. Ecclus. xix. 2, 6 KoAAéuevos 
mépvas), and as also adding significance 
to the frightful statement which 
follows. They who were two inde- 
pendent oéuara became by their sin év 
CHua: ovKert yap aplnow 7 cuvovcla Tovs 
Svo civat Sto, BAN’ ev auporépous épydCerat, 
Chrys. trovrat yap K.T.A.] ‘for 
the two shall be, saith He, one flesh:? 
proof from Gen. ii. 24 of the strong ex- 
pression in the preceding clause. The 
words primarily relate to what is blest 
and pure, but, in reference to the natural 
fact, are equally applicable to the case 
which the Apostle is alluding to: comp. 
Theod. zz Zoc. In the original Hebrew 
the of &¥vo is not expressed, but the 
words occur in all the citations of the 
passage in the N. T., viz. Matt. xix. 5, 
Mark x. 8, Eph. v. 31, and in the LXX. 
The insertion in the Greek probably 
arose, not from any polemical reason 
(in favor of monogamy, Meyer) but 
simply to give an antithetical force to 
the declaration. gyolv] It may 
be doubted what nominative is to be 
supplied to this practically impersonal 
verb, whether 4 ypaph (comp. John vii. 
38, Rom. iv. 3, ix. 17, al.), or 6 @eds 
(comp. Matt. xix. 5, 2 Cor. vi. 2, where 
this nominative is distinctly suggested 
by the context) :the latter is perhaps 
the more natural; comp. Winer, Gr. § 
58. 9, and notes oz Zph.iv. 8. Though 
Adam uttered the words, it was from 
God that they came: ‘ Deus utique per 
hominem dixit, quod homo prophetando 
predixit,’ August. de Vupz¢. I. 4. 

els cdpka pilav] ‘ove flesh ;’ not ‘joined 
into,— a more forcible expression than 


122 


éotw ; “Ecovrar yap, dyoiv, ot dvo eis capKxa pilav. 


KoAAwpmevos TO Kupiw ev mrvedud 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. VI. 17, 18. 


16 8é 


éotw. WDe ) 
: UYETE THY Tropveray. 


a ’ , y \ rn ’ ' 
Tay awapTnua 0 éav Toon avOpwios éxTos TOD G@paTos éoTLV* 


zz’ (Wordsworth), —but simply the 
Hebraistic rendering (LXX) of the 
‘my Sivad of the original; comp. 
Guillemard, Lebraisms in N. T. p. 3 
(Cambr. 1879). In Attic Greek the 
meaning would be ‘serve as one flesh’ 
(comp. Plato, Adcib. 1. p. 126, evBovaia, 
eis tt eorw;),—a meaning here 
obviously untenable: comp. Rost u. 
Palm, Worterd. s.v. eis, Vol. I. p. 790. 
17. 0 St koAAdpevos TO Kup.] ‘ But he 
that cleaveth to the Lord;’ strong 
antithesis to the 6 KoAA. TH wopvn of the 
preceding verse. The expression is 
chosen, in part to sustain the antithesis, 
and in part to express close and 
intimate union; comp. 2 Kings xviii. 6, 
eKoAANOn TH Kupiw, Sir. ii. 3, KoAAHOnTe 
avte [Kuplm Gee], kal wh amooris, al. 
The construction of the verb in the 
LXX is singularly varied; it is used 
with the genitive (Job xli. 7), dative, 
~ and the prepositions eis (Psalm xliii. 
26), év(2 Kings v. 27), uerd (Ruth ii. 
8), mept (Jer. xiii. 11), mpds (Deut. x. 20), 
and with émiow (Psalm lIxii. 9). In the 
N. T. it is only found with a dative and 
once (Rev. xviii. 5) with &xpu. 
ey rvetpd gore] ‘Zs ove spirit’ with Christ ~ 
in the purest earthly union it was but 
év oSua; with Christ it is €v rvedua. The 
spirit of the believer so becomes one 
with the Spirit of the Lord, that the 
Lord lives in him, and he in the Lord; 
comp. Gal. ii. 20, and on the blessed 
nature of this wxio mystica, Hooker, 
Serm. Ul. £, Vol. 11. p. 764 sq. (ed. 
Keble), Rothe, Dogmatik, Part u1. § 
71: comp. also Weiss, Bz0/. Theol. § 84. 
6, Vol. 1. p. 458 (Transl.). Truly it is 
said by Bp. Martensen, ‘The deepest 
quietive, the deepest peace and serenity, 
and at the same time the deepest joy, 


is to be found only in fellowship with 
Christ,’ Chr. Ethics, § 110, p. 336 
(Clark). 

18. Pebyere tiv wopvelav] ‘ Hee 
Sornication ;’ z.c. ‘don’t argue or parley 
with this deadly sin;’ sum and sub- 
stance of the Apostle’s foregoing ex- 
hortations,— expressed in this single 
inclusive command, and illustrated by 
the verses which follow. The absence 
of connecting particles gives a fuller 
force to the clause. Tay GudpT7wa 
K.t.A.] ‘Every sin whicha man may 
have committed is outside of the body ;’ 
‘extra corpus est,’ Vulg. These some- 
what difficult words have received 
many interpretations. The common 
view is that the Apostle is here speak- 
ing in a general form, and that the 
exact words (way x.7.A.) are not to be 
pressed (‘tales sententiz morales non 
morose urgendz sunt,’ Bengel), there 
being some sins, ¢.g. intemperance, 
which can hardly be said to be com- 
pletely éxrds tod océuaros. The true 
force of the words and of what the 
Apostle has already said is, however, 
thus seriously weakened: there zs no 
other sin which is évtds tod oéuatos in 
the frightful form in which zopyela is 
By it the whole o@ua, inwardly as well 
as outwardly, is made over to another, 
and is utterly separated from Christ. 
Such sins as intemperance or self- 
murder involve acts injuriously 
affecting the body, yet done, as it were, 
from without; but the sin of the 6 
mopvedwy (observe the tense as con- 
trasted with 8 édv morhon) is, so to say, 
within the body, and using it as a 
direct agent and implement: see Hof- 
mann 77 doc. els 7d UStov copa 
Gpaptave] ‘sinneth against his own 





Cuap. VI. 18-20. 


r CORINPHIANS. 12s 


6 88 ropvevav eis TO Wiov cHua dwaptdver. 1) ove oidare Ore 


\ fal ¢ lal \ lal ? eu A e / , 5 e 
TO OWUA VELWY VaOS TOU €y vupsly aylou IIvevpartos €OTLY, OU 


4 > x n \ > > \ ¢ lal 20 ? rd @ x fo 
éxete arro Oeov ; Kal ovK EaTe EavTwv, “ HYyopacUnTe yap TYUNS * 


body,’ —not merely by dishonoring or 
polluting it (Theodorus, Sever.), but by 
taking it from Christ, making it one 
body with a harlot, and, especially, by 
converting it into a direct instrument 
of sin. It is in the dreadful fact of 
of the cdpé pia, and all the consequences 
that flow from it, that the Apostle’s 
distinction between mopvela and other 
sins affecting the body is to be fully 
understood and _ realized: comp. 
Neander zz Joc. Fornication is a sin 
against the personality, in a form, and 
to an extent, far beyond, that of any 
other sin of sensuality: see Harless, 
Chr. Ethics, § 41. 3, p. 368 (Transl.). 
19. 4 od oiSare] ‘ Or know ye not: 
elucidatory and confirmatory of the 
serious statement of the last clause; 
‘Or, if ye doubt that mupvela verily is a 
sim against a man’s own body, know ye 
not what that body really is?’ Though 
Sov in one sense, it is strongly other- 
wise in its true sense; ‘suaviter limita- 
tur 76 proprium v.18. Ita nostrum est 
corpus ut sit templum Dei,’ Bengel. 
To copa tpov «.T.r.] ‘your body (ze. 
‘the body of each one of you’) zs the 
temple of the Holy Ghost which is in 
you, comp. Rom. viii. 11. On this 
distributive use of the singular, exx. of 
which are found in good Attic prose, 
especially with plural adjectives, see 
Kiihner, Gr. § 347. 4, Winer, Gr. § 27. 
1. The use with a simple associated 
genitive, as here (Matt. xvii. 6, Luke 
ii. 31, 2 Cor. viii. 24, comp. Eph. vi. 14), 
is rare in earlier Greek, except in 
poetry: comp. Bernhardy, Syzz¢. I. 3, 
p- 60. A few authorities read ré 
odéuara; but both external evidence and 
internal (from probability of a correc- 
tion) show it to be wholly inadmissible. 


On the anarthrous, but here no less 
definite, vads (not ‘a@ temple,’ Rev., 
Wordsw., but ‘¢e temple’), see notes 
on ch. iii. 16, and comp. Origen 
(Cramer, Caz.), who, in commenting on 
the verse, passes almost naturally into 
the definite form. ov txere ard 
Ocod] ‘which ye have from God ;’ en- 
hancement of the preceding words by 
a mention of. the giver of the blessed 
gift— Almighty God: kal 7G meyede 
THs Swpeds, Kal TH akia Tod Sedwxdros 
cum. It is hardly 
necessary to remark that the o# is due 
to the ordinary rule of attraction; see 
Winer, Gr. § 24.1. This usage seems 
to bind the relative clause more closely 
to what has immediately preceded; 
comp. Tit. iii. 6, where the 06 almost 
certainly refers to the nearer, and not 
the remoter, substantive. Kal 
ovk éoré Eavtav| ‘and ye are not your 
? second reason why mopvela was 
to be accounted an gmapria against the 
%.ov cGua, viz. because the true person, 
body, soul, and spirit, belonged, not to 
themselves, but to God, On this 
genitive with the auxiliary verb, and its 
various uses, see Donalds. Gr. § 452, 
cc., Kiihner, Gr. § 418, and the ex- 
cellent remarks of Rumpel, Caszslehre, 
p- 281 sq. (Halle, 1845). 

20. HyopdoOnre yap tists] ‘ For ye 
were bought for a price;’ viz. the 
precious blood of Christ, as more ex- 
pressly stated in Eph. i. 7, 1 Pet. i. 18, 
19, Rev. v. 9; comp. Acts xx. 28, 1 
John i. 7. The blood of our blessed 
Lord is the Avtpov: He came, as He 
Himself says, Sotva: thy Wuxhv adtod 
A’tpoy avt) moAAGv; see also Mark x. 
45, 1 Tim. ii. 6, and the clear state- 
ments of Usteri, Zehrd. I. 1. 1, p. 107. 


KaTamTToel, 


OW? - 


124 1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. VI. 20-VII. 1. 


4 \ X \ > fal , e a 
doEdcare 57 Tov Ocov ev TS TopaTL Lav. 


It is good to beasI am; 
but, if otherwise, let 


VII. Ilepi d€ av éyparpare, Kadov ap 


husband and wife each observe conjugal duty to the other. 


20. odéuatt Suey] The added words, ral év 7H mvetpati buady, Atwd eats TOD 
@cov (fec.), have greatly preponderant authority against them, and are omitted 
by Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort. 

I. eypawate] Rec., Lachm. [Treg.] add wo with authority of considerable 
weight. The authority, however, for the omission seems critically preponder- 


ant. So Zisch., Rev., Westc. and Hort. 


In regard to the four parts or degrees 
of redemption (payment of ransom, 
admission into the Church, exemption 
from the tyranny of sin, and everlasting 
salvation), see Jackson, Creed, Book 
Ix. Vol. vill. p. 219 (Oxf. 1844), and on 
the ransoming, as distinguished from 
the atoning, work of Christ, Kreibig, 
Versthnungslehre (Introd.) p. 1 sqq. 
(Berlin, 1878): see also two sermons 
on this passage by Farindon, Servm. 
Vol. II. p. 495 sqq. The gen. 
Tiuys (not ‘magno pretio,’ Vulg., but 
simply ‘pretio,’ Clarom., Syr., Copt., 
al.) is the so-called genitive of price 
(Kiihner, § 418. 6), — a genitive perhaps 
allied to the genitive of amount (see 
Kriiger, Srachl. § 47. 17), or to the 
genitive of relation (Donalds. Gr. § 
453, @d@), but, more probably, falling 
under the general idea of causality, as 
cases occur (¢.¢. Lysias, 27. 6) in which 
the instrumental dative takes the 
place of this genitive. It must, how- 
ever, be remembered that all these 
definitions of the genitive are only 
conventional. The true and primary 
idea of this difficult case would seem 
to be ‘limitation of the general by the 
special;’ and this, it is obvious, may 
appear under varied aspects: see es- 
pecially, Rumpel, Casuslehre, p. 17, 
and p. 242sq. On the use and meaning 
of &yopd{w in the N. T., see Cremer, 
Worterb. s. v. p. 58. Sofdicare 
8} k7.A.] ‘glorify then God in your 
body ;’ not ‘by your body,’ the prepo- 


sition marking, as usual, the spiere in 
which, or the substratum on which, the 
action takes place: see Gal. i. 20, and 
notes zz Joc. The particle 64 (only 
used seven or eight times in the N.T.) 
has here its usual meaning. It gives 
force to, and emphasizes, the impera- 
tive; ‘illico rem, de qua przcipimus, 
transigi jubemus., Klotz, Devar. Vol. 
II. p- 395, Kihner, Gr. § 500. 1, 
Kriiger, Sprachl. § 69. 17. 2. The 
primary meaning of the particle appears 
to be temporal, the derivation ap- 
parently being from the same root- 
form as the Latin ‘jam’ (Curtius, 
Ltym. p. 560: most certainly not from 
Sanscr. dv. as Hartung, and even 
Baiumlein, p. 98) : this temporal meaning 
soon merges into the more usual 
ethical meaning of retrospect and 


emphasis generally; see the excellent | 


section of Kiihner on this somewhat 
protean particle, Gv. § 500. I sqq. 


III. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS RELATIVE 
TO MARRIED AND SINGLE LIFE (ch. 
vii.) 

1-7. Rules for the married. 

1. Ilepl 88 dv x.t.d.] ‘Now concerning 

the things which ye wrote to me :’ transi- 

tion, by means of the 6€ wetaBatindy 

(see notes oz Gal. i. 11), to another 

of the subjects which had been brought 

before the Apostle by the Corinthian 

Church; so ver. 75, viii. 1, xii, 1. On 

this subject, and the party or parties 

in the Corinthian Church by whom it 


ie 


Cuap. VII. 1, 2. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


125 


6 , X Nee @ 400} 8 \ ae \ y ? 
PeT@ YUValKOS MN ATTTETUAL ta@ O€ TAS TTOPVELAS EKATTOS 


\ e lel fal > he \ id , x ” ” > , 
THV E€AUTOV YUValKa EX ETO, Kalb EKACTH TOV LOLov avopa EXETO. 


was brought before the Apostle, much 
difference of opinion exists. The 
most reasonable view appears to be 
this ;— that as there was confessedly in 
Corinth a party that claimed to be ‘of 
Paul,’ and another ‘ of Cephas’ (1 Cor. 
i. 12), and as one of these Apostles was 
married, and the other was not, so the 
adherents of, at least, these two parties 
might, very conceivably, have differed 
on the subject, not merely of the ex- 
pediency, but of the actual rightfulness, 
of marriage (see ver. 28, 36) ; and that* 
thus the question might naturally form 
a not unimportant portion of the Cor- 
inthian letter. It isalsonotimprobable, 
owing to the ascetic tendencies which 
early showed themselves in the Church 
(1 Tim. iv. 3 exhibits this tendency 
in its distinctly evetical aspects: see 
notes 272 Zoc.), and which perhaps were 
additionally called out at Corinth by a 
reaction from the prevailing licentious- 
ness of the city, that doubts on the 
subject of marriage were entertained 
by some at least of the adherents of all 
the parties (except perhaps that of 
Cephas) into which the local Church 
was unhappily divided. However this 
may be, the questions addressed to the 
Apostle on the subject were clearly 
regarded by him as of great importance, 
and are answered by him with the 
greatest circumspection and care. 

On the subject itself see Rothe, Zheol. 
Ethik, § 1080, Vol. v. p. 11 sq., Harless, 
Chr. Eth., § 52. 1, p. 426 sq. (Transl.), 
and especially Martensen, Chr. Ethics, 
§ 4-7, Part 111. § 6. p. 11 sq. (Transl.) 
Kahov avOpdatw K.t.d.] ‘2t 2s good for a 
man not to touch a woman:’ as a 
general principle it is xaAdy for a man,— 
not merely profitable or advantageous 
(Hofmann), but good for him,— simply 
and morally good (see notes oz 1 Thess. 


v. 21), not to touch (sexually,—Gen. 
xx. 4, 6, comp. Ruth ii. 9, Prov. vi. 29; 
so paveo@a, Philo, de Leg. p. 781, and 
Latin ‘tangere’: comp. Valcken. Scho. 
and Kypke zz Zoc.) a woman; as, how- 
ever, the verses that follow show, it is 
a principle that is necessarily to be 
modified and limited by circumstances. 
While this principle is morally good on 
the one hand, so, on the other hand, is 
it right and true to say with the author 
of the Epistle to the Hebrews, rfuos 6 
yduos év maow, ch. xiii. 4. Marriage, 
indeed, isso highly favored of God as 
to signify the mystical union of Christ 
and His Church: it is to the subject of 
marriage, then, that the Apostle at 
once passes. Fi 

2. Sia St tas topvelas] ‘ But because 
of the fornications,’ 7.e. the commissions 
of mopveta prevalent at Corinth; the 
plural denoting the concrete form of 
the sin specified ‘by the abstract sub- 
stantive; see especially the copious list 
of examples in Kiihner, Gr § 348. 3. ¢, 
and comp. Winer, Gr. § 27. 3, and 
notes oz Gal. v.20. This passage has 
been urged as an instance of the use of 
did to denote purpose directly. It may 
be doubted whether this is the case. 
In expressions like 6:4 ri, final cause 
does seem occasionally to be distinctly 
marked (Aristot. Phys. 11. 3. 3, ib. 7. 1, 
al.) ; in the present case, however, the 
purpose is only fer conseguens,—‘ on 
account of,’ and so inferentially ‘to 
prevent;’ see Winer, Gr. § 49. b, but 
also consider the exx. in Kiihner, Gr. 
§ 434. II. 3. ékarros Thy €avTod 
«T.A.] ‘Let each man have his own 
wife ;’ not, permissively, ‘he may have’ 
(see ver. 15, and comp. Kiihner, Gr. 
§ 397. 2), but, as the preceding clause 
serves distinctly to show, with the full 
and proper imperatival force, ‘let him 


126 1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. VII. 2-5. 


8 ipl \ ae] \ \ > A > 8 50 € ‘ be \ @ \ 
TH YUvalKl O avnp THY OpEtAHY ATrOdLOOT@, OMOLWS OE Kal 1) UV 


TO avopt. 4% yuvn Tov idiov cHmatos ovK é€ovotater, adda O 


a / € wT, \ uN c - X\ lal O7 yf > od / 
avnp* omolws de Kal 0 avnp Tod idiov capaTos ovK é£ovorater, 


GAA 1) yur. 


5 ut) GTrooTEpette GANHAOUS, Eb pjTL dv eK TUp- 


3. dpeaty] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly 
preponderating authority: Rec. dépetAouevny etvoray, — an old (Syrr.), though very 


obvious, gloss. 


have,’ z.e. ‘it is morally desirable and 
right that he should have;’ 6a 5¢ ras 
mopvelas eimmy eis eykpdrey ovvwOet, 
Theoph. The distinction between the 
imperative of direct command and the 
imperative of permission can only be 
settled by means of the context; see 
Winer, Gr. § 43. 1. In this chapter 
the reader will do well fully to realize 
the standpoint from which the Apostle 
speaks, and the circumstances under 
which he gives his directions. He was 
addressing the Christian inhabitants of 
a city notorious for its sensuality and 
licentiousness ; he was also speaking as 
one who deeply felt the éveoracay 
avéyrny (ver. 26) of the times, and the 
reality of the need for all who were in 
earnest, to be, as far as possible, 
G@meéptuvor (ver. 32), and so the more free 
to serve the Lord amepiordorws ; he was, 
lastly, answering grave questions under 
the conviction that the time was 
shortened (ver. 29), and the fashion of 
this world fast passing away. Under 
the influence of all these deep feelings 
he gives his counsel ; and the summary 
of this counsel clearly is,—ph (nre? 
yuvaika. edy 5é Kal yautons ovx huaptes 
(ver. 28); ‘semel, nec sud sponte, sed 
interrogatus, ccelibatum suadet, idque 
lenissime,’ Bengel; see Martensen, Chr. 
Ethics, Part ul. § 6, p. 14. Meyer 
rightly calls attention to the clear and 
emphatic manner in which the verse 
condemns polygamy and concubinage; 
comp. Hofmann zz Joc. 

3 Thy Sherry] ‘ Ler due,’ sc. ‘debitum 


conjugale,’ Valck. The word épaan 
occurs in two other passages in the 
N. T., Matt. xviii. 32, and Rom. xiii. 7, 
but is not found elsewhere either in 
classical or Hellenistic Greek: see 
Grimm, Lex. s. v., Lobeck, Pzryz. p. 
9o, and fora similar use of xdpis, Valck. 
Schol. Vol. i. p. 204: comp. also Wolf. 
im loc. What is said in reference to 
the man is, in the latter portion of the 
verse, said in reference to the woman; 
eimev dperdhy dpeiAcoOa amd Tod avdpds, 
kat TO avSp) dard Tis yuvaikds, Origen ap. 
Cramer Cat. 

4. | youd) «.7.0.] ‘ Zhe wife has no 
power over her own body,’ scil. in the 
matter under consideration; and con- 
versely. Each must render the 6pe:ay 
when the other asks for it. The 
repetition of the words in reference to 
the husband is intended to distinctly 
mark the principle,—‘ jus utrinque est 
zquale,’ Bengel ; 7d dé duotws dis refuevov, 
Bidwor voeiv Bre wh voulérw 6 avnp év 
Tois Kata Toy yduov Tpdyuaow omepexew 
Tis yuvaikds: duotdT ys €or) Kal icoTns Tots 
yeyaunndor mpds &AAhAovs, Origen, ap. 
Cramer Cat. Theodoret (zz Joc.) 
notices that in this verse the woman is 
first spoken of in reference to the 
subject-matter of the verse, éme1d}) adrau 
uddioTa mpd Tav ddpar 
domdCecOa Thy eyKpdreiay. 

5: BA] Gtroorepetre GANAOUs] ‘Do 
not defraud one another ;’ scil. in re- 
gard of these conjugal rights. The 
word is chosen (observe also the tense; 
pres. not aor.) with reference to what 


eidbacw 


Cuap. VII. 5. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


127 


, \ , a a 
Pwvov mpos Kalpov, iva axYoAdoNTE TH TpocEevy Kal Tad ert 


uy Bi aN 9S [ra \ / ¢ a e n \ \ b] 
TO avTO 7Te, Wa pa Treipaty Lwas 6 Zatavas diva THY axpa- 


5. exorAdonte — fre] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on 
very greatly preponderating authority: Rec., cxoAd(nre TH vnorela Kal mpooevx7, 


kal mad él 7d avTd cuvepxnade. 


has been already said, and fitly shows 
that, however plausible might be the 
arguments of a false asceticism (comp. 
De Wette), it did amount to a plain 
withholding of that which was due; 
‘congruit hoc verbum cum _ verbo 
debendi, ver. 3.’ Bengel: see Hofmann 
in loc. el pate dv KT.A.] ‘ 2e72/ess 
it should perhaps be by consent ;’ the &v 
here standing without any verb, and 
probably to be considered as combined 
with the preceding restrictive ef wt; 
see Buttm. Gr. V. 7. p. 219. and 
comp. Hartung, Partzk. Vol. 11. p. 330, 
The ef wari, in fact, make up a sort of 
compound word, into which the pre- 
ceding ef becomes so far merged that 
the &y is attached as adding further 
condition to what was already con- 
ditioned: so, in earlier Greek, ei is 
sometimes added to a preceding ei uh 
(mzsz si); see examples in Kiihner, Gr. 
§ 577. 8, Klotz, Devar. Vol. Il. 525. 
The verb to be supplied would not be 
in the optative, as in earlier Greek 
(Kiihner, Gy. § 577. 1), but either the 
indicative, as in 2 Cor. xiii. 5, or, more 
probably, the subjunctive, as in Luke 
ix. 13, ef phte mopevdevres ucts 
dryopdowpmev. ta oXoddonre] 
-in order that ye may be free for ;’ 
purpose of the exception, with its two 
associated conditions, é« ouupdvou 
(compare Winer, Gr. § 57. 2) and mpbds 
kaipév. It might properly be adopted 
when special circumstances might 
suggest more special devotions; ‘ inter- 
dum accidit, ut omnibus aliis omissis 
jejunandum sit et orandum, ut cum 
ingruat aliqua calamitas, si appareat 
judicium ire Dei, vel quum aliquo 


difficili negotio impedimur, vel quum 
aliquid agendum est magni momenti, 
quale est institutio pastorum,’ Calvin. 
Such a principle was recognized by the 
Jews (Ex. xix. 15, 1 Sam. xxi. 4), and 
even, the heathens (see Wetst. 27 /oc.) : 
see the numerous references on this 
subject in Fabricius, Bzbdioth. Antig. xx. 
8, p. 584. The whole is summed up in 
the single sentence,— ‘abstinentia 
previa servit precibus,’ Bengel. 

Kal mdduv éwt Td add Are] ‘and may 
again come together ;’ dependent on the 
preceding iva, though the expression of 
purpose has really passed into that of 
a kind of permissive direction : comp. 
the somewhat similar 2 Cor. viii. 7, 
where, however, the clause stands more 
isolated, and is probably dependent on 
some verb of command; see notes 
on Eph. v. 33. The expression ém 7d 
avTd (ch. xi. 20, xiv. 23, Luke xvii. 35, 
Acts i. 15, ii. 1, ili. 1) expresses the 
idea of locality (émi tov adtdy témTor, 
Hesych.), and so, in this particular 
passage, of the again living together as 
man and wife. Some examples will be 
found in Loesner, Odés. p. 165. 

Wa pa mepdaty K.7.A.] ‘272 order that 
Satan may not tempt you because of your 
incontinence ;’ purpose of the implied 
counsel contained in the kal mdéAw ém 
7 avTd jre, and with special reference 
to the personal Tempter; ‘non facile 
est tentatio sine Satana prasumenda,’ 
Bengel. On the form dx«pacta (‘incon- 
tinentia,’ Vulg., Copt., ‘concupiscentia 
corporis,’ Syr., ‘ungahdbains,’ Goth. ; 
comp. Theod.-Mops., [Aéyer] Tov kpareiv 
ov Suvduevov cis wopvelay KatapeperOat), 
the earlier form being d«pdrem, see 


128 1 CORINTHIANS. 


ciav vor. 


[Cuap. VII. 5-7. 


6 n \ , \ , , 3 By , 
TOUTO de ALyW KATA ovYYyVOuNV, ov KaT émiTa@ynv. 


od , \ 
’ Oédw 5: travtas avOpwrrovs eival Os Kal EuavTov’ adda ExacTo; 


7. Aw 5] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly pre 
ponderating authority. The reading 6éAw ydp (Rec.) is fairly supported, but is 
apparently an early instance of a correction, the true connection not having 


been clearly seen. 


The other changes, éxe: xdpioua for xdpioua exer, and 6—é 


for 6s—és, are adopted by Zachm. and the other edd., on very greatly prepon- 


derating authority. 


Lobeck, Phryn. p. 524. It occurs 
Matt. xxiii. 25, and occasionally in 
Polybius, e.g. “ist. 1. 66. 6, Iv. 6. 10, 
XXXII. 11. 5. The word is not derived 
from kpaots, kepdvvuut (Wordsw.) but 
from akpadrns, and has its first syllable 
short: akpacia (opp. to evxpacia) is a 
different word; see Rost u. Palm, Zex. 
s. v. Vol. 1. p. 82. 

6. rotro] ‘ 77s,’ scil. all that refers 
to the natural conjugal relations, ver. 3 
sq:, all which being specified per- 
ceptively in form calls forth from the 
Apostle the statement that, though in 
form kar’ émtayhy, it is to be under- 
stood as really katd ovyyvdéunv. The 
sentiment thus is, ‘Live together as 
man and wife, except under special 
circumstances;’ and amounts to a 
qualified repetition of verse 2. At first 
sight it might seem plausible to refer 
the rovro simply to that verse (De 
Wette), and to regard the rest as 
practically parenthetical. The ob- 
jection, however, that the thought 
seems to rest not so much on the fact 
of marriage as on the conjugal relations 
involved Mm it, seems sufficient to 
justify the reference, not to ver. 2, but 
to the verses which follow it. To 
refer the totro simply to ver. 5 (Meyer) 
is open to the obvious objection that 
the wh aroorepetre GAAHAOvs is only the 
Thy Operdnv amodidétw expressed in 
another form (see Hofmann 77 /oc.); 
and to refer it merely to a part of that 
verse kal mdéAw «.7.A. (Origen, al.) is 
still less tenable, as that verse obvi- 


ously forms one connected whole. 
Kara cvyyvopny] ‘by way of concession,’ 
‘secundum indulgentiam,’ Vulg., ‘ tan- 
quam infirmis,’ Syr. This word only 
occurs in the N. T. in this passage. It 
is, however, common both in classical 
and in later Greek (LXX, Prol. Ecclus, 
and ch. iii. 13, 2 Macc. xiv. 20 Alex., 
and frequently in Polybius), and in all 
cases has the meaning either of ‘ venia,’ 
or (as here) of ‘indulgentia;’ Suid. 
ovyyvaun cvyxépnois. That it is here 
used for yvdéun (‘ut significaverit 
Paulus non esse hoc suum przeceptum, 
sed amici consilium,’ Valck. z Zoc.), is 
contrary to the lexical meaning of the 
word. 

7. OAw 8é] ‘Vet JL would;’ ex- 
pression, with clear antithesis to the 
foregoing verse, of the Apostle’s per- 
sonal feeling in the matter; ‘What I 
have said is kata cuvyyveuny, but my 
own personal desire in the matter is 
that all should be as I am.’ The 
sentiment of the first verse is thus in 
effect reiterated. In regard of the 
verb 0éAw, it may be remarked that 
there is nearly always some degree of 
will-energy expressed by it, whereas in 
BovAoua it is rather the direction taken 
by the will that comes into prominence ; 
consider Rom. vii. 15, where @éAw and 
pioS are in a kind of antithesis, and 
contrast Acts xviii. 15. The two words 
are in juxtaposition and in a sort of 
illustrative contrast in Eurip. /p%. zz 
Aul. 340, TG Soxeiv wey odx) xpi (wr, TS 
5t BotAcoba OéAwy; see the careful 





Cuap. VII. 7. 8. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


129 


” ” , 2 Qcod Cig A e e Ss ? 
tOvov EXEL XAPlLo Ua EK WEOV, O MEV OUTWS, O OE OUTS. 


It is good for the un- 
married to remain so. 
In the case of the mar- 
ried, separation is to be 
avoided. 


8 Aéyw dé 
\ > Lal 
KaXov avTots 


comments of Cremer, Wurterd. s. v. 
BovrAoua, p. 142, and notes o7 1 Zim. v. 
14. Probably of the many distinctions 
that have been drawn that of Ellendt 
will be found to cover the widest area, 
viz. that 6éAev marks the desire gener- 
ally, the instinctive will, BovAet@u the 
desire as founded on some sort of 
inward deliberation (Zex. Soph. Vol. I. 
p- 316); comp. Matt. i. 19, Eph. i. 11 
and notes 27 oc. TavTas avOpatrous 
K.T.X.] ‘that all men should be ;’ ex- 
planatory adjunct to the predication 
(Donalds. Gr. § 584), specifying the 
substance and purport of the éAw. 
On this expansion of what has been, 
not inappropriately, termed the fara- 
tactic accus. (/.e. the accus. dependent 
on, rather than governed by, the in- 
transitive verb), see the suggestive 
remarks of Rumpel, Casuslehre, p. 186, 
and comp. Kiihner, Gv. § 473.2. On 
the word itself it may be said that the 
state of Corinth and the licence con- 
nected with the traditional worship of 
Aphrodite (Strabo, Geogr. viII. 6, 20) 
might well have called it forth from 
one who had spent eighteen months in 
the city, and seen with his own eyes the 
prevailing sensuality and corruption. 
On the Apostle’s sentiments and teach- 
ing on this subject, see Rothe, Z%eol. 
Ethik. § 1080, Vol. v. p. 12 sq. (ed. 2). 

as Kal éuavtdy] ‘even as myself ;’ scil. 
év éyxparela, Chrys., ‘ccelibem,’ Bengel ; 
the accusative being continued by a 
kind of intelligible attraction ; contrast 
Acts xxvi. 29. On this so-called ‘com- 
parative’ use of kal (comp. notes oz 
Phil. iv. 12), whereby, in clauses where 
comparison is expressed or implied, the 
contrasted member of the comparison 

17 


Tois aydmow Kal Tals ynpass, 


2\ / e > Ud (ee) be 
€aV KELVMOL WS Kayo. €l O€ 


It is best for each one to remain in the state in which he was called. 


is brought into prominence and em- 
phasis, see notes oz Eph. v. 23. In 
such cases the particle both co-ordinates 
and emphasizes. Wrov exeu 
Xdpirpa] ‘has his own gift of grace ;’ 
his special gift (in regard of the subject- 
matter generally,— continence and its 
degrees) as vouchsafed to him by the 
Holy Ghost, and flowing forth from 
God as its source; see notes oz 2 Tim. 
i. 6, and on the two uses of this word 
in the N. T., the general and the 
special, Cremer, Worterd. s. v. p. 581. 
See also the good article of Suicer, 
Thesaur. s. v. Vol. Il. p. 1500 sq. 

6 pev ottas K.T.A.] ‘one in this manner 
and another in that ;’ not with special 
reference to Td mapevevey on the one 
hand, and 76 -yauety on the other 
(Theophyl ), but simply and generally, 
the context suggesting and supplying 
the application. The use of o¥rws in 
each member rather than of o¥tws in 
the one and ékefyws in the other (Isocr. 
Panath. p. 269 B, Tore wey exelyws viv dé 
o’tws) belongs to later Greek: see 2 
Sam. xi. 25, and comp. Judges xviii. 4, 
2 Sam. xvii. 15, al. 


8-24. Rules for the unmarried; and 
Jor the married, especially in reference 
to separation. Christianity in its 
relation to outward circumstances. 

8. A€yw SE Tots Gyapots] ‘7 say also to 
the unmarried ;’ continuation, in the 
form of amore distinct direction (Aéyw), 
of the sentiment of the preceding verse 
(0éAw 5¢ mdyras «.T.A.), application of it 
to the cases of the &yauo: and the 
xiipa. There is thus no specially 
marked transition (‘Now I say’) from 
the married to the unmarried, but, as 


130 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Crap. VII. 8, 9. 


OUK &yKPAaTEVOVTAL, YpaynoaTwoay* KpEiTTOV yap éoTW Yyapnoas 


8. abtots] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev. Westc. and Hort, on very greatly 
preponderating authority: Pec., avrois éotv. 


Q. yaujoau] The reading is very doubtful. 


The present yaneiv is adopted 


by Zisch., Westc. and Hort (with margin): the aorist yaujjoa by Rec., Lachm. 
Treg., Rev., with perhaps a slight preponderance of external authority. The 
internal evidence seems to point the same way, the change to the present being 
perhaps due to a conformity to the present mupotc@a. 


the order of the words indicates, a re- 
iteration, by means of the adjunctive 
5é, of the leading sentiment of the 
chapter (ver. 1) with reference to those 
who are now coming before the 
Apostle’s thoughts. It has been 
thought, from the mention of the xijpat, 
that &yauor are to be limited to widowers 
(see Maier zz Joc.): the obviously 
inclusive tots yeyaunréow (ver. 10) 
points, however, to a similarly inclusive 
reference,— unmarried, whether male 
or female, previously married or not. 
The xai is thus in its adjunctive, rather 
than its simply copulative, sense, and 
adds the special to the general: see 
notes oz Phil. iv. 12. Widows are 
naturally specified as probably, even at 
that time, occupying a distinctive posi- 
tion in the Christian community ; comp. 
2M Veg) SG - éav pelvariy as 
Kayo] ‘2fthey should abide even as I ;’ 
scil. &yauo. The xaddy is again re- 
iterated; see ver. 1. On the kat of 
comparison (k&yé), see the preceding 
verse. The aor. subjunct. has here its 
tinge of the future exact, of which 
tense (with édy) it is the usual repre- 
sentative,—‘ if in the sequel they shall 
remain’ (‘si permanserint,’ Clarom.) : 
see Kiihner, G7. § 389. 6,7. It should, 
however, be remembered that édy with 
the aor. subj. is the more general and 
asual form, the present being reserved 
‘or cases where the duration of a state 
‘s more particularly to be marked; 
compare Kriiger, Sprachl. § 53. 6. 4, 
Bernhardy, Syzzt. x. 9, p. 382. 


In regard of the question whether the 
Apostle had ever been married or not, 
it seems enough to say that a mistaken 
interpretation of Phil. iv. 3 (Clem.-Alex.) 
cannot be accepted as outweighing the 
tradition of the Church as expressed 
in Tertull. de Monog. cap. 8, al. 

g. eb 8 odK eyxpatevovTar] ‘ But if 
they have not continency, * have not 
power over themselves’ (middle); the 
ov here so coalescing with the verb as 
only to express a single idea (see 
Winer, Gr. § 55. 2, Kiihner, Gr. § 513. 
4, Hermann, Viger, No. 309), but 
preserving its independent force (comp. 
John x. 37, where ov mo is more than 
merely ‘neglect’), though confessedly 
expending it on the verb with which it 
is associated. Where a fact has 
sharply to be brought out, and sharply 
to be negatived, there ef ob seems to be 
not only permissible, but logically 
correct. In regard of the connection 
of the verse, it may be observed that, 
as in verse 8 the opening words of the 
chapter were, in point of fact, reiterated, 
so here what is said in vex. 2 is prac- 
tically also repeated. Marriage, in one 
of its aspects, is the remedy for in- 
continency: one of the reasons for 
which it was ordained, as the opening 
exhortation in our Marriage Service 
solemnly declares, ‘for a remedy 
against sin and to avoid fornication ;’ 
see, however, Harless, Chr. Ethics, § 
52, p. 433 (Transl.). The form 
éyxparever@at, though only found in the 
LXX and in the N. T., is recognized 


Cuap. VII. 9, to. 


 mupodvabar. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


131 


Wroig S€ yeyaunkoow mTapayyé\X\w, ovK ty 
Yyeyaun payy ) ry 


Gra 0 Kupwos, yuvaixa aro dvdpos uy xopicOjvar U(édy 8é 


by the grammarians as a correct form: 
see Thom. Mag. p. 30 (ed. Bernard), 
aKpateverOat undauds eimns, GAAQ ovK 
éyKpareverOu. The condemned word, 
however, is found in Menander and 
Aristotle. Kpeitrov] ‘better ;’ 
not necessarily as the lesser of two 
evils (see Raphel zz Joc.), but as 
absolutely better, because involving’no 
sin (comp. ver. 28). It is still, how- 
ever, clear that, sofar as the Apostle’s 
judgment is given, he considers the 
hévew ws Kayw the best course of all. 
yopijoat] ‘2o marry,’ ‘to enter into the 
married state,—aor., in contrast with 
the present which follows. Two forms 
of the aorist of this verb occur in the 
N. T., the earlier éynua (Matt. xxii. 25, 
Luke xiv. 20) and the later éydunoa 
(Matt. v. 32, Mark vi. 17, al.): both 
occur below in ver. 28. The latter 
form is said to have appeared first in 
the age of Menander; see Lobeck, 
Phryn. p. 742. tupoto Par} 
‘to burn’ (present; to continue in that 
state), ‘uri,’ Vulg., ‘intundnam,’ Goth., 
2.2.5 aS more fully expressed in Syr., 
Suri concupiscentia’ [b’regto]: évépnvev 
bon THs emOuulas 7 Tupavvis, Chrys. 
The word occurs occasionally in the 
N. T., sometimes in its literal (Eph. vi. 
Hoye2ebet. il. 12; kev.) i. 05, ii. 18); 
sometimes in its metaphorical, meaning, 
as here (in ref. to lust) and 2 Cor. xi. 
29 (in ref. to grief : ‘ardere doloribus’) : 
see also 2 Macc. iv. 38, x. 35, xiv. 45, 
where it is connected with Tots @upois. 
The various uses of the word in the 
LXX and in the eccl. writers will be 
found in a good article in Suicer, 
Thesaur. s. v. Vol. 11..p. 894 sq. 

10. Tois St yeyapnkdow Trapayyé\rAw] 
* But to those that have married TI give 
command ;’ not ‘to the married,’ 
generally (Arm., Auth.), but ‘to those 


who have married’ (Copt., which 
rightly expresses the tense), scil. since 
they became Christians, and so (in 
contrast to those who were content to 
wait for the yaunodrwoav) have acted 
on their own account: comp. Hofmann 
iz loc. The Apostle speaks here to 
those who were on _ both sides 
Christians, and conveys to them the 
authoritative command (mapayyéAAw: 
see 2 Thess. iii. 4, 6, 10,12, 1 Tim. i. 3, 
Ve DH, Val, Wi 03 19s) als) Which 
follows,— yuvaika amd avdpds wh xwpic O7- 
vat. In ver. 12, 13, he speaks to those 
who were Christian only on one side, 
but to them also he gives substantially 
the same direction, speaking, however, 
as an inspired Apostle (see below) 
rather than directly from the Lord. 
Why the Apostle here speaks primarily 
of the case of the woman does not 
seem perfectly clear. It may have 
been from the obvious fact that the 
case of a woman separating herself 
would at once seem incompatible with 
all deeper Christian life; or that the 
known license of Hellenic married life, 
in regard of separation, on the part of 
the woman as well as of the man (see 
Hermann, Prvatalter. § 30. 14 sq.), was 
prevailing even in Christian Corinth; 
or, less probably, that ascetic practices 
might have crept into the Church, 
against which the Apostle desired 
(especially in such a context as the 
present) to direct words of implied 
warning and prohibition. ovK 
éy® GAG & Kuptos] ‘ot 7, but the 
Lord:’ corrective clause, ‘I com- 
mand—yet not I, but etc.,’ the 
command having been, in effect, given 
in the express declarations of our 
Lord Himself in reference to the 
subject of divorce (Matt. v. 31, 32, 
xix. 3 sq., Mark 10 2 sq. Luke 


132 1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. VII. 10, 11. 


kal xwpicOy, pevéT@ ayapwos 7) TO avdpi KataddayyTw), Kal 


avopa yuvaica un advévar. 


xvi. 18); émeid) vduor 
Tov Xpiorod TebevTa avayiwdoKew peAAEL 
Tept Tod xwpls Topvelas wy arevat 
yuvaira 81a TovTS pyow, ‘ovK eye,’ Chrys. 
The same great expositor rightly 
remarks that the ok éyé implies no 
more than this : the éyé does not point 
to St. Paul in his merely uninspired 
character, but throughout the chapter 
(so in ver. 12) to the Apostle zz his 
inspired character, and as having the 
Spirit of the Lord (ver. 40): comp. 
Weiss, 420/. Theol. § 89. 6, Vol. I. p. 
13.sq. (Transl.). ard avSpds ph 
Xwpiolivar] ‘do not separate herself 
Srom her husband’ (‘a viro non dis- 
cedere,’ Vulg., ‘separate from,’ Goth., 
Copt.), the passive voice having here, 
in effect, a reflexive force. On the 
really close connection between the 
passive and middle voices, of which 
passages like the present supply an 
illustration, see Kiihner, Gr. § 378. 4. 
Whether it be best to adopt a purely 
passive translation or, as here, a 
practically reflexive translation, can 
only be determined by the context. 
On the explicit nature of this command, 
and the question of divorce generally, 
see Rothe, 7heol. Ethik, § 1081, Vol. v. 
p- 30 sq. (ed. 2), Martensen, Chr. 
itnesmbart)| Lil. §%20,) ps “40. sqq. 
(Transl.). 

II. édv SE kal XwopioOy] ‘dt if she do 
separate herself ;’ the nat having here 
its ‘etiam’ force (see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 
II. p. 635), and bringing into emphasis 
the xwpic6f, ‘etiam separata fuerit 
[‘discesserit,’ Vulg.], contra pre- 
ceptum,’ Bengel. On this and other 
uses of kal, see notes o7 Phil. iv. 12; 
and on the éay with the subjunctive as 
generally marking objective possibility, 
z.€. where experience will prove the 
truth or otherwise of the supposition, 


pnTa@s smd 


2 Tots 5€ Nowtrois Aéyw eya, 


see Hermann, Viger, No. 312; but see 
notes oz Gal. i. 9. We must regard 
this and the following clause as purely 
parenthetical, the infinitival construc- 
tion being again continued as if no 
break had occurred. kata\\a- 
yate] ‘be reconciled, ‘reconciliari,’ 
Vulg., Syr. The passive translation is 
here more natural than the middle, 
‘novum ingenium induere,’ Fritzsche 
in Rom. v.10: the reconciliation would 
probably be due, at least to some 
extent, to the intervention of others; 
see Rom. v. 10, katnAAdynuev TG Oe, 
2 Cor. v. 20, kataAAdynte TS Oca, and 
comp. Matt. v. 24,'d.aAAdyn&i TH GdeAGG 
gov. The distinction drawn by Titt- 
mann (Syvo7. p. 102 sq.) between kataa- 
Adtrew (‘facere ut alter inimicum 
animum deponat’) and 8madAdAdtrew 
(‘ efficere, ut quee fuit inimicitia mutua, 
ea esse desinat’) is ingenious but 
doubtful; see the careful note of 
Fritzsche, Rom. é.c. Vol. 1. p. 276. 
The 8&4 probably denotes the ‘ transitum 
ex alia in aliam conditionem;’ see 
Winer, Verb. Compos. in N. T. v. p. 
. kal dvdpa K.7.d.] ‘and that 
the husband do not part from his wife,’ 
Attention is called by expositors to the 
omission of the all-important exception, 
mapexTos Adyou mopyelas (Matt. v. 32, xix. 
9). There is, however, no ground 
whatever for supposing that such an 
omission was designed. The Apostle 
is not considering the question of 
divorce proper, but of separations of a 
totally different kind: even in Mark. x. 
1o and Luke xvi. 18 the exception is 
not specified. Bengel draws a dis- 
tinction between the uses here of 
xwpilocda (‘separatur pars ignobilior, 
mulier’) and dquévar (‘ d2mittit nobilior, 
vir’), and maintains it even in ver. 13, 
on the ground of the believing wife 


Cuap. VII. 12-14. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


133 


ovx O Kupios: ev tis adeAghos yuvaica eyes Arictov, Kal avTy) 


a 3 lal 2, > fa! \ > / > / 18 \ Ve 
ouvevdokel oikely meT avTOV, wy adieTw adTHy* } Kal yur Aris 


” ” ” Ne 5 a = a ? 2A \ 
EXEL avopa ATLGTOV, KAL OUTOS DUVEVOOKEL OLOELY LET QAUTNS, (7) 


adiéta Tov avopa. 


[acre \ eo cos 2 A 
nylacTat yap oO avynp O aTrloTOS EV T) 


12. Aeyw @ys] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very 
clearly preponderating authority: Rec., éy® A€éyw. 

13. kal ovTos —agietw Tov &vSpa] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and 
fort, on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec., cad aitds — agiétw aitdv. 


being really the superior. This is 
perhaps a little overstrained. The 
latter verb is certainly more usual in 
reference to the husband, but is also 
appropriately used in-reference to the 
wife in ver. 13, as, infact, taking upon 
herself the responsibility of the separa- 
tion; see Hofmann 27 Joc. 

12. Tots 8€ owmois] ‘ But to the rest 
say I, not the Lord, scil. to those not 
included in the above directions to the 
Gyduors and the yeyaunrdow. Both 
these classes were Christians: the 
Apostle is now about to speak to a 
mixed class, viz. a class in which either 
husband or wife remained a heathen. 
In regard of such cases our Lord had 
given no command. The Apostle, 
then, as having the Spirit of God (ver. 
40), gives his directions. On éyé, as 
contrasted with 6 Kupios, see notes on 
ver. IO. éxev] ‘as ;’ the word 
being studiously chosen, here and ver. 
13, to mark this as a marriage con- 
tracted prior to the conversion to 
Christianity : rep) rv mpd Tod knpvyuatos 
suvapbevtwy évraila pnotv, Theodoret. 
ovvevdoKel] ‘consents, scil. ‘agrees 
with the husband on the subject,’ the 
ovv referring to the mutual nature of 
the agreement ; comp. 2 Macé. xi. 35, 
brép dv Avolas 5 ovyyevhs tod Bactréws 
ouvexapnoev byiv, kal nuts ovvevdoKoumer. 
The verb occurs (with a dat.) Luke xi. 
48, Acts viii. 1, Rom. i. 32, and, 
without an associated noun, Acts xxii. 
20 (according to the best text). 


3. kal ovTos K.t.A.] ‘and he con- 
sents to dwell with her ;’ transition 
from the relative into the demon- 
strative. It is of course true that, as 
Winer says (Gr. § 22. 4), St. Paul 
might here have written ds cuvevdoxe?; 
the change into the demonstrative 
form is, however, far more true to the 
genius of the language, and to the 
avoidance of the repetition of the 
relative in the dependent clause; see 
Bernhardy, Syz#. vi. 16, p. 304, Kiihner, 
Gr. § 561.1. #4 acvéro Tov dvSpa] 
‘let her not part from her husband ;’ 
tov &v5pa,— though a heathen, he was 
her husband. On the use of aqcévae in 
the case of the wife, see notes on ver. 
II: itis infact a vox media by means 
of which the Apostle preserves a strict 
and literal identity between the rules 
for the two sexes. *AmoAvew (the 
regular word in the N. T.; in classical 
Greek dmoméumrew or éxBddAdAev: see 
Bremi, Demosth. p. 92) could not have 
been used in reference to the wife, nor 
GmroAeimey (the usual word in the case 
of the wife; see Thomas Mag. s. v. 
p- 97, ed Bernard) in 
reference to the husband. Thegeneral , 
sentiment is clear and emphatic, that 
the conversion to Christianity does not 
justify the separation of husband and 
wife, where the non-Christian, whether 
husband or wife, was willing to dwell 
with the other. 

14. hylacra, yap K.t.A.] ‘For the 
unbelieving husband has been sanctified 


Godley, 


134 1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. VII. 14. 


‘ e Z ¢€ \ e 7 > a 16 lel > -\ 
YUVALKL, Kab NYlaTTAL n YUV n aTrLaTOS Ev TO AdEAPH* Errel 


y” \ ; ig lal > iA fe > la) \ vf tetas} 
apa Ta Téxva tuav axdBapta eat, viv Oé ayia éotw. 


Bef bé 


14. TG GdeAbG] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on greatly 
preponderating uncial authority: Rec., 7G avdpt, with nearly all the Vv. The 
Memph., however, is in favor of the text. 


in the wife;’ confirmatory of the 
directions given in the two foregoing 
verses: ov yiverat axd@aptos [ 6 avhp], 
GAAG vik | Kabapdrys Tis yuvaikds Thy 
axabapoiay rod avdpds, kad wuKg 7} Kabapdrns 
TOU TigTOD avdpbs mdr 7d aKdOapToy THs 
amiorov yuvads, Chrys. The aydrns 
thus referred to has of course no 
personal reference: the husband was 
not in himself sanctified, but by being 
closely united to one who was a 
member of the Church and of the 
company of the @yo1, was regarded as 
in a guasi-Christian light ; the conjugal 
bond through the believing wife had 
the character of Christian matrimony. 
so rightly Calvin, ‘nihil prodest hec 
sanctificatio conjugi infideli: tantum 
eo valet, ne ejus copula fidelis in- 
quinetur, et profanetur ipsum matri- 
monium:’ in a word, matrimony was 
still ‘ holy matrimony.’ év TH 
yevaikt] ‘27 the wife:’ she was the 
substratum or basis of the sanctifying; 
see Winer, Gr. § 48. 2. a, and comp. 
notes oz Gal.i.24. So év TG ddeAG 
in the next clause. The true force of 
the preposition thus remains; the 
action being regarded as taking place, 
not ‘by means of,’ but, so to speak, in 
the causal sphere of the person or 
thing with which this preposition is 
connected: see the good collection of 
examples in Kiihner, Gr. § 431. 1. 3. 
Such distinctions may seem finely 
drawn, but they are real, and in some 
cases (¢.¢. €v Xpiot@, év Kuplw, al.) of 
distinct exegetical importance: see 
notes oz Gal. ii. 17, and oz Eph. ii. 6, 
iv. 1. éel dpa K.7.X.] 6 stzce it 
would then follow that your children are 


unclean,’ ‘alioquin filii vestri immundi 
essent,’ Vulg.: proof of what was 
stated, by showing what would clearly 
follow if the non-Christian parent had 
not been regarded as thus 7yaopévos. 
On the use of éei, see notes on ch. v. 
Io, and on the use and meaning of &pa 
(‘significatio levioris cujusdam ratio- 
cinationis, quz indicat rebus ita com- 
paratis aliquid ita aut esse aut fieri,’ 
Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 167), Donalds. 
Gr. § 548. 4, and notes oz Gal. v. II. 
What is obviously assumed is that the 
children of Christians generally are 
&y1a,— not in a personal sense, but as 
standing in the closest relation to those 
who, by profession, are @yiot. Even if 
born only of one Christian parent the 
child was still the child of a Christian, 
and as such, owing to the closeness of 
the union between parent and child, 
had, so to speak, a &yid7ys shed upon it 
from its closeness of union with what 
was Christian: comp. Hooker, Zcc/. 
Pol. v. 60. 6. The suéy has thus a 
perfectly general reference, viz. to the 
Christian hearers or readers of the 
Epistle, and includes all cases in which 
a child could claim a Christian parent 
or parents. The different grounds on 
which such children could be accounted 
&yia are well stated by Edwards zx Joc. 
No inference can possibly be drawn 
from the passage as to infant baptism. 
Though children are spoken of as @yia 
in the sense, and from the circum- 
stances, already specified, yet that 
which they are pécee (comp. Eph. ii. 3) 
remains wholly unaffected and un- 
changed: the need for Christian 
baptism remains entirely the same; 


.=—_ ? 


Cuap. VII. 14, 15. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


135 


0 amuotos ywpifeTar, ywpilécOw: ov SedovrAwTar 6 ddeAdos %) 


 GOEAp) ev Tols ToLovTots, ev Sé Eipynvyn KéEKANKEY Huds 0 Beds. 


15. nuas] So Rec., Lachm., Treg., and Rev. (with marg.), on slightly prepon- 


derating authority: Z7%sch., Westc. and Hort (with marg.), duas. 


It also seems 


more probable that jua@s was a correction for jas, than conversely. 


see Miiller, Doctrine of Sin, Vol. 1. p. 
305 (Transl.), and Hofmann, Schrz/t- 
beweis, Part I. p. 454, and the clear note 
in his Commentary (in loc.). 

viv S€] ‘dt as itis, the viv having its 
logicat rather than its temporal 
meaning ; see notes on ch. v. II. 

15. XwplérOw] ‘let him depart ;’ 
permissive imperative; there need be 
no hinderance on the part of the 
Christian wife; comp. ch. xiv. 38, and 
see Winer, Gr. § 43. 1, Kihner, Gr. § 
397. 2. Having given direction in the 
case of the &moros desiring to remain 
with his Christian wife (ver. 13), the 
Apostle now deals with the case of his 
leaving her. In such a case, he says, 
the Christian wife, and, in the converse 
case, the Christian husband, are neither 
of them bound, in regard of the de- 
serting husband or wife, as they would 
each have been, if the one so deserting 
had been a Christian ; od« €xet dvaryeny 6 
TOTS F 4 TioTH ev ToLs AMioT OLS TOLAUTHY, 
dia alT@ emixerta em Tov motor, 
Photius. ov SeSovAwrtar év Tots 
To.ovTrois] ‘7s zot under bondage in such 
circumstances ;’ apparently a studiously 
strong word (contrast the lighter d¢derar 
ver. 39) to enhance indirectly the in- 
ferential sanction of the Apostle to 
the regarding of the marriage as 
dissolved. The interpretation of these 
words has been the subject of much 
controversy. That they imply that 
wilful desertion on the part of the 
unbelieving husband or wife is to be 
regarded as having set the believing 
wife or husband free, cannot reasonably 
be doubted; comp. Hofmann 7x Joc. 
Whether one so set free is to be con- 


sidered as at liberty to marry again (a 
Christian, see ver. 39) is more open to 
question. Nothing certainly is ex- 
pressly said (Neander), but the tenor 
of the words (ov SedovAwrat k.7.A.) 
seems in favor of the liberty ; see Rothe, 
Theol. Ethik, § 1081, Vol. v. p. 30 (ed. 
2), Martensen, Chr. Ethics, Part It. § 
19, p. 38 (Transl.). Such too is the 
ruling of the canon law; see the 
authorities cited by Wordsworth zz /oc. 
The only real difficulty is whether such 
an interpretation can be considered 
consistent with our Lord’s declaration, 
Matt. v. 32, xix. 9. The ordinary 
view seems reasonable; viz. that our 
Lord’s words must be understood as 
referring, by the very nature of the 
case and of the context, to those, and 
such as those, to whom the words were 
addressed, and that, in regard of such 
cases as those now under consideration, 
nothing further could be deduced from 
our Lord’s command than this — that 
the delzeving husband or wife was not 
at liberty to depart. If deserted by 
the unbelieving, then fresh considera- 
tions arose. év eipnyy] ‘7x 
peace ;’ not ‘in pacem,’ Clarom., but, 
with the usual and proper force of the 
preposition, ‘in a sphere of, and with 
the accompaniments of, peace:’ peace 
was the moral element in which the 
kAjots took place; see Winer, Gr. § 
So. 5, and notes oz Zh. iv. 4; comp. I 
Thess. iv. 7. The clause is thus to be 
connected, not directly with the 
xwpi(écOw (Chrys., De Wette),—for 
the departing might have been perfectly 
peaceable, — but with that which pre- 
cedes: it presents under a slightly 


136 1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. VII. 15-17. 


x U 5 
rf yap oidas, yivat, eb Tov avdpa cawcels; 7) TL oldas, avep, 


> \ a , 17 3 Saal er ce € ey 4 e Ko 
EL TIV YUVALKA DWOELS 5 Ei BN €KaACTG) WS EMEPLO EV Oo uptos, 


17. éuepicev] So Rec., Lachm., on apparently preponderating external au- 
thority: Zisch., Treg. (with margin), Rev., Westc. and Hort (with margin), 


Memepiker. 


Internal arguments are also in favor of the text; a conformation 


of the aorist to the following perfect is more likely (the significance of the 


different aspect (S¢) the same general 
sentiment; Christianity involves no 
elements of bondage; it is in peace 
that we have received our Christian 
calling from God. The Christian 
wife, then, need feel no peace-disturbing 
scruples about the matter, ei 6 &moros 
xwplerat, xwpiléoOw: see Hofmann zz 
foc, who has well worked out the 
thought-connection of this somewhat 
difficult verse. 

16. tl yap otSas «.t.d.] ‘For what 
knowest thou, O wife, as to whether thou 
wilt save thy husband :’ confirmation 
of the reasonableness of the foregoing 
direction, ei 5¢ 6 &moros k.7T.A.; ‘let the 
&moros depart, and feel no anxious 
scruples thereon, for what knowest 
thou about the matter, whether, if thou 
strive to keep him, thou wilt convert 
him?’ There are here two widely 
different views of the connection of 
thought of this verse with the fore- 
going: (a) that of the earlier exposi- 
tors (Chrys., al.), according to which 
the present clause is to be referred to 
the ph adierw of ver. 12 and 13, and 
ver. 15 regarded as parenthetical; (0) 
the connection indicated above, and 
adopted by the majority of modern 
interpreters. If (z) be adopted, then 
et will in effect be ‘whether—not;’ 
and the verse will contain an argument 
against separation founded on the 
possibility of the mordv muépos convert- 
ing the &morov. To this there is no 
grammatical objection, as the particle 
ei, which in itself only involves the 
enquiry ‘ de aliqua re, utrum sit an non 
sit’ (Klotz, Devar. Vol. II. p. 508), may 


be rightly rendered with an associated 
negative, if the same is plainly implied 
by the context; see Kiihner, Gr. § 587. 
21, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 65. 1. 8. No 
other example, however, has been cited 
from the N. T. The real objection to 
(az) is founded on the sequence of the 
sentences, which appears regular and 
unbroken, confirmatory reasons here 
following each statement in a natural 
and logical order, and apparently pre- 
cluding the assumption of any paren- 
thesis. The main thought is ov 
SeSovAwTa, and this is confirmed by the 
present verse and limited by that 
which follows. We maintain there- 
fore with some confidence (4), and 
connect the ydép with the principal 
statement in the foregoing verse. 

In the question ti oiéas, Meyer (citing 
Ellendt, Zex. Soph. Vol. U.. p. 823) 
regards the ri as adverbial, and not as 
an object-accusative. This seems very 


doubtful in a context such as the 


present, where the transitive verb seems 
naturally to need its supplemental 
accus.: contrast the examples cited by 
Ellendt zz doc. That the sentence 
becomes in point of fact equivalent to 
‘How knowest thou, etc.,’ may be 
conceded, but the ordinary regimen 
remains. 

17. Hi pa éxdorw «.7.A.] ‘Save only 
as the Lord distributed to each:’ limi- 
tation of the principal foregoing 
thought, viz. that there was no (vyov 
SovAelas in the case of the unbelieving 
husband (or wife) deliberately de- 
parting. The Apostle, by way of 
salutary caution, adds that though, 


Cuap. VII. 17, 18. 


ve ¢ , c 4 t 
exacTov ws KéxKAnKeV 0 Deeds, ovTwS TEPLTTATELT®. 


Tals éxkAnolas Tacals SvaTadooopmaL. 


r CORINTHIANS. 


137 


\ 4 b] 
Kat OUT@S EV 


18 [Ieputetunpuévos tis 


tense in each case not being perceived) than a change from the less usual form 


Mewepixey to the more familiar euépier. 


The order Kipios — eds (Rec., 


@cds — Kupios) is adopted by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on 


very greatly preponderating authority. 


under the special circumstances, there 
was no actual Sovaeia, yet that mainte- 
nance of the position which has been 
assigned to each one by the Lord is 
ever to be regarded as the normal 
Christian principle. Various other inter- 
pretations have been given of this some- 
what difficult clause, but they willall be 
found either to infringe on the true 
exceptive force of ei uh (see notes ox 
Gal. 1.7), or to obscure the prominence 
of the od ded0vAwrat, which (as has been 
already observed) is the main thought 
of the foregoing verse. In both 
this and the following clause the 
emphasis falls on the &€«aoros (hence 
the slight inversion of order, éxdorTw 
as rather than @s éxdor@ ; comp. ch. iii. 
5, Rom. xii. 3) ; each individual had his 
own outward pépos (circumstances of 
earthly life) assigned to him by the 
Lord [not the /irst, but the Second 
Person of the blessed Trinity; see 
notes oz 1 Thess. iii. 12], and each has 
his own special kAjjo.s from God. 
KékAnev] ‘as called:’ with reference 
to the enduring nature of the initial act 
of grace, the perfect always indicating 
‘actionem plane preteritam, que aut 
nunc ipsum seu modo finita est, aut per 
effectus suos durat,’? Poppo, Progr. de 
emend. Matth. Gramm. p. 6. In the 
first clause the euépicev simply refers 
to the past, and is silent as to the 
present ; see notes oz Gal. v. 24. On 
the regular reference of the KAjats to 
God the Father, see notes oz Gal. 1.6. 
ovtws mepimateitw] ‘so let him walk ;* 
not merely, ‘so let him remain’ 
[existat], Eth., but ‘let such be his 
18 


course,’ ‘ita ambulet,’ Vulg., ‘sva 
gageai, Goth.,— the verb mepimareiy in 
passages of this kind always referring 
to a man’s course of life in its con- 
tinuous, practical, and outward mani- 
festations: see Suicer, Zhesaur. s. v. 
Vol. 11. p. 679, and notes oz Phil. iii. 
18, and oz 1 Thess. iv. 12. Kal 
otras K.t.X.] ‘ Azd so do L ordain in all 
the Churches:’ not only Sexvis 7d Tod 
TapayyeAuatos avaykaioy (Theodorus), 
but with a tone alike of apostolic 
authority and of conciliatory exhorta- 
tion ; 
etiam Corinthii possunt acquiescere,’ 
Bengel; comp., Gicum zz Joc. 

18. ILepurerpnpeévos tis exdnOn] ‘ Was 
any man called being circumcised ?’ scil. 
being circumcised at the time he 
received his calling to Christianity. 
Application of the general rule just 
given to two cases of considerable 
practical importance. Some commen- 
tators (De Wette, Meyer, al.) adopt 
here and ver. 27 a non-interrogative 
punctuation, the aor. indicative being 
regarded as used _ hypothetically— 
‘suppose any one was called, etc.;’ ‘si 
circumcisus aliquis vocatus sit,’ Syr., 
sim. Aith., and so apparently Copt., 
Goth.: comp. James ii. 19, and see 
Winer, Gr. §§ 25. 1, 60. 4. This is 
grammatically admissible (see Kiihner, 
Gr. § 391. 1, Kriiger, Sprachl. § 54. 1. 
1), but is here somewhat forced, 
especially as there are no associated 


‘doctrina universalis: in qua 


particles (e.g. kal 5) or that prominence 


of the verb (see examples in KUthner) 
which might seem to suggest this 
hypothetical sense. We therefore, 


138 1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. VII. 18-20. 


exAnOn ; pn eriotacbw: év axpoBvoTia KéxAnTAaL TIS; MH 


mepiTewver Ow. 


19 e ‘\ OE > \ ¢e > / 
 TepcToun ovdév eat, Kal 4 aKpoBuvaTia 


ovdév eat, Gra THPHOLS EvTON@Y Ocod. 7 ExacTOS EV TH KAHoEL 


18. KéxAntat tis] So Lachm., Tisch.. 


Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on au- 


thority, very greatly preponderating for the perfect, and very clearly for the 


order of the words: Rec., tis éxAhen. 


with Zachmann and most modern 
editors, adopt the interrogative. 
pa) émomac0w] ‘let him not make him- 
self uncircumcised.’ ‘non adducat pre- 
putium,’ Vulg.; with reference to a 
revolting practice, by surgical means 
(see Celsus, de Med. Vil. 25), of 
superinducing a state that in appear- 
ance might be that of a&«poBuvoria: see, 
if necessary, the reference in Winer, 
Real-Woérterb. Art. ‘ Beschneidung,’ 
Vol. I. p. 160 (ed. 3), Wetst. 27 Joc., 
and the instances alluded to in Light- 
foot, Hor. Hebr. (in Joc.) Vol. I. p. 
899 (Lond. 1686). The apostates and 
viol mapdvowor mentioned in 1 Mace. i. 
II sq. émolnoay éavtois &kpoBvotias Kat 
aréornoay amd Siabhens Gryias (ver. 15) ; 
on which passage see the notes and 
references of Grimm (/andb. zu den 
Apocryphen, Part Ill. p. 14), and comp. 
Joseph. Aztig. xu. 5.1. The act was 
either to avoid the risk of being scoffed 
at (‘Judzi curti,’ Hor.), if seen naked 
(comp. Joseph. 7Z. c.), or to signify dis- 
avowal of the warpios @pnoxeia (Joseph.), 
and adoption of the habits and prin- 
ciples of heathenism. év GKpo- 
Bvoria «.t.d.] ‘Has anyone been called 
in uncircumcision ;’ scil. in the state 
of uncircumcision, Rom. iv. 10. The 
perfect serves slightly to mark the 
calling, not simply as having taken 
place, but as continuing in its effects: 
such a one was to give no heed to 
Judaizing teachers ; comp. Gal. vi. 12. 
19. ov8év éoriv] ‘25 nothing,’ i.e. is 
of no consequence,’ in regard of the 
spiritual aspects of the question now 
under consideration; if circumcised, 


the man was no better; if uncircum- 
cised, he was no worse; comp. ch. viii. 
8. As Calvin rightly observes, 
‘utrumque in zquo ponit, ne alterius 
odio alterum stulte appetatur.’ Cir- 
cumcision was now a ‘sacramentum 
mortuum’ (Estius); primarily and 
generally a sign of dedication to God 
(see Herzog, Real-Encycl. Vol. 1. p. 
109), and to the Jew, of entering into 
special relations with Him (Gen. xvii. 
10; see Kurtz, Old Cov., Vol. 1. § 58, 
p- 236 sq., Transl.), it lost all its sig- 
nificance when the better covenant 
was vouchsafed, and the good things 
were come of which it was one of the 
symbols and foreshadowings (comp. 
Deut. x. 16, xxx. 6); év yap XpioT@ 
*"Inoovd ovTe mepitoun tt ioxder ovTE 
&kpoBvotia, GAAd miotis 3° a&ydans 
evepyounevn, Gal. v. 6; see Rom. ii. 25 
sq. GANG THpnots K.T.A.] ‘dt 
the keeping of the commandments of 
God,’ scil. verily 7s something; ‘est 
aliquid, confert ad justitiam et salutem,’ 
Estius: comp. ch. iii. 7. Circumcision 
was an évtoAy, but not one of universal 
obligation: ‘quum hoc unum esset ex 
mandatis, quamdiu ceremoniis legalibus 
devincta fuit Ecclesia, videmus pro 
confesso sumi, adventu Christi aboli- 
tam fuisse circumcisionem,’ Calvin. 

20. €kawros év TH KAHOE K.T.A.] ‘Let 
each one, in the calling wherewith he 
was called:’ reiteration, without any 
connecting particles, and so more 
emphatic, of the rule given above, in 
ver. 17, and implied throughout the 
paragraph. The xAjots must thus be 
taken, with its usual and theological 


CuHap. VII. 20, 21. 


iA 
9 €KAHON, ev TAVTN MEVETO. 


E CORIN PALAN S!. 139 


21 Aovros €KAHOns 5 fur} ToL MEAETO* 


GX ei Kal Svvacat édevOepos yeveoOar, waddoV ypjoar. ™ 6 yap 


reference (as KéxAnrev 6 Oeds, ver. 17), 
as marking the generous agency, 
within the scope and ambit of which 
each one was to remain. The dative 7 
does not involve a silent repetition of 
the preposition (Matt. xxiv. 50, Acts 
xiii. 39, al.; comp. Winer, G7. § 50. 7. 
6), but is simply instrumental, as in 2 
Tim. i. 9, kaAéoavTos KAnoe: ayia; each 
one was not simply called, but called in 
conformity with a merciful and divinely 
ordered procedure; comp. Jackson oz 
the Creed, Book x11. 7. The rendering 
‘vivendi ratio’ (Calvin). or ‘status, in 
quo aliquem vocatio offendit ’ (Grimm), 
is lexically doubtful, and certainly 
inconsistent with the N. T. usage of 
the word: see Cremer, Worterb. p. 333, 
and Edwards zz Joc. év TabTy 
pevérw] ‘772 this let him remain ;’ with 
distinct emphasis: he was not to with- 
draw from the providential disposition 
of God as involved and implied in the 
eis Thy mliotw mpocaywyn (Theoph.) 
vouchsafed to him. For examples of 
this emphatic use of the demonstrative, 
see Winer, Gr. § 23. 4; comp. ver. 24, 
ch. vi. 4. 

21. Aoddos éxd7Ons ; K.T.A.] 6 Wast 
thou called, being a bond-servant! let it 
not be a care to thee;’*do not let the 
fact of being a bond-servant be a source 
of spiritual trouble to thee,’ — rijs dov- 
Actas being in effect latent; see Winer, 
Gr. § 64.1. 6. There might be much 
in the state of the slave that might 
seem to preclude the full realization 
of Christian blessings: such anxieties, 
however, were to be cast aside; He 
who had vouchsafed to take the form 
of a dSo0vAes had conferred the true 
freedom (ver. 22). GAN et kal 
Sivacat «.T.A.] ‘but if thou even canst 
become free.’ It seems hardly possible 
to doubt that in these words the a@aad 


has reference to the preceding nega- 
tion, and that the kai throws its em- 
phasis on the dtvacam x.7.A. and en- 
hances the statement: see Hermann, 
Viger, No. 307, and the notes oz Phil. 
ii. 17. Whether the rendering be 
‘also,’ (Evans), or, much more appro- 
priately, ‘even,’ really matters but 
little, provided the true connection be 
maintained. In the ordinary rendering 
“if thou canst even become free’ (‘sed 
si potes etiam liber fieri,’ Beza), or, 
dropping the kat altogether, ‘if thou 
canst become free’ (Copt., al.), the 
force of the kat becomes, directly or 
indirectly, transferred to éAevOepos ye- 
vécOut, and thereby rH éAevOepig sug- 
gested as the more natural supplement 
to xpfivat. For such a practical trajec- 
tion, however, of kal, no satisfactory 
example has been adduced. We seem 
bound, therefore, to adopt the natural 
connection: so Syr., Arm. [Goth. ‘al- 
though;’ comp. Vulg.], and, very 
clearly, Phot. (Cramer, Catez.) (ei kat 
divacat Sid Twos omovdys Kal émipedctas 
€revOepos yevérGat), anchsthe Greek ex- 
positors (zz Zoc.) generally. The real 
difficulty, however, is in the next 
clause. PaAAov Xpioat] ‘zse zt 
rather.” But what? tH éAevdepig or TH 
SovrAelg? The former of these seems 
at first sight more natural: that the 
Apostle should sanction the slave’s 
availing himself of a fairly offered op- 
portunity is only what we might natu- 
rally expect; ‘to thee so it would be 
better,’ Arm. Christianity points up- 
ward. Moreover, the preceding words 
éAcvOepos yeveo8at seem to suggest the 
synonymous substantive, and xpjoa, 
again, is more applicable to the adop- 
tion of a new state of things than the 
maintenance of an old state. These 
two objections, however, seem to be 


140 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. VII. 21-23. 


év Kupio krbels S0dd0s areretOepos Kupiov éoriv: dpolws o 


edevOepos KrANOels Sods eoTw Xpiotod. ™ typhs yyopacOnre* 


22. duotws] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly 


preponderating authority: Rec. adds kal. 


insuperable: (a) that the supplement 
of tH éAevOepia is logically inconsistent 
with the explanation already given of 
the preceding clause, and leaves the 
‘even’ unintelligible; (4) that such a 
wipplement is clearly not in harmony 
with the general tenor of the whole 
passage, which indisputably is & @ 
€xANOn, ev TovTw peveTw (ver. 24). We 
therefore adopt the latter supplement, 
rh dovdeig, and see in it a Christian 
sentiment of a higher strain than that 
presented by the first aspect of the 
words. Though the Apostle does not, 
even in the most indirect way, forbid 
the lecitimate use of any providentially 
offered opportunity, he makes every- 
thing else subordinate to the great 
cardinal thought, that in Christ all 
callings, all conditions, all distinctions, 
are practically obliterated (Gal. iii. 28, 
Col. iii. 11, comp 1 Cor. xii. 13), —and 
the more so, as the time was now 
‘shortened’ (ver. 29), and far other 
thoughts were now in all true hearts 
than the amelioration of a transitory 
temporal condition. Thus Syr. (‘elige 
tibi ut servias;’ translators intercalate 
‘potius quam’ before ‘ut,’ but ap- 
parently without anything to justify it), 
the Greek expositors, and most modern 
. writers, except Hofmann, who, though 
arguing with much force and ingenuity, 
fails to break down the reasoning 
founded on the plain grammatical con- 
siderations above alluded to. The yap 
in the next vetse then follows natu- 
rally; elra kal thy aitiay émdyet, Chrys. 

22. 6 yip év Kuplw x.t.d.] ‘For he 
that hath been called in the Lord being 
a bond-servant is a freedman of the 
Lord ;’ confirmatory grounds for the 


foregoing directions; the Christian 
bond-servant may well remain con- 
tented with his position, for he is a 
freedman whose freedom Christ has 
purchased, and is dvrws édrevOepos; 
comp. John viii. 36. The gen. Kupiouv, 
as Meyer rightly remarks, is not de- 
pendent on amedevOepos as the original 
manumitting owner, but as the (pres- 
ent) possessor. The former servitude 
was not to the Lord, but to sin (Rom. 
vi. 20, dovAo 7TE Tis Guaptias): from 
this Christ set us free: Ka0d éxeiOev 
édcvbepdoas, b1d Thy oikelay Hyayev Bact- 
Aefay, Photius (Cramer, Caz.). On the 
significant év Kupiw, see notes oz Lph 
iv. I. dpolas 6 ehedOepos k.T.A.] 
‘in like manner the free man, when 
called, is a bond-servant of Christ ;’ 
converse statement; the one who has 
external freedom, when made a Chris- 
tian, becomes the dodAos of a redeeming 


-Lord, and is sometimes permitted to 


bear the marks of his holy ownership ; 
see Gal. vi. 17, and notes zz doc. The 
connection ‘the bond-servant who is 
called 22)... 
free’ (Alf.) does not seem to be cor- 
rect. In the first member. 6 év Kupi 
KAnOels is the subject, and SodA0s in 
defining apposition: in the second 
member the changed position of the 
participle seems to make it more nat- 
ural to regard 6 éAed@epos as the subject, 
in antithesis with the SodAos that fol- 
lows, and xAnéels the defining or cir- 
cumstantial participle ; comp. Donald. 
Gr. § 442. 

23. Tints yyopdoOnre] § Ye were 
bought for a price ;’ scil. by Christ, at 
the cost of His most precious blood 
(1 Pet. i. 19); see notes and references 


‘he that is called being ~ 








Cuap. VII. 23-25. 


pn yivecOe Soddot dvOpétrav. 
€v TOUT@ peEveTW Tapa O«@. 
7 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


141 


4 Exaatos év ® éKAHOn, adeAooi, 


24. mapa ©eG] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on greatly 
preponderating authority: Rec., rapa TG Oe@. 


on ch. vii. 20, where the nature of the 
Ad’rpoy and the grammatical character 
of the genitive are both discussed. 
The exact reference of the next clause, 
py ylver Oe «.7.A., has been very differ- 
ently explained. It can hardly be a 
mere general counsel (Chrys., Theod., 
al.), as both the verse which precedes 
and the verse which follows have a 
special reference to the subject under 
consideration, viz. the patient continu- 
ance in the state or calling in which 
each one, by God’s providence, was 
placed. The words seem more natu- 
rally to point to advisers and teachers 
who (under circumstances not known 
to us) gave a very different counsel to 
that of the Apostle. They to whom 
the words were addressed were Christ’s 
servants: it was to Him alone, and to 
his Spirit as vouchsafed to His Apostles 
and true teachers, that they were to 
look for guidance and direction. There 
was only too much of this kind of 
of bondage to men in the Corinthian 
Church; comp. Hofmann zz /oc., whose 
own interpretation, however, ‘do not 
spend your lives in a dependence on 
men in which your circumstances have 
not placed you,’ is too vague for the 
connection. 

24. kaoros év & exdTOn «.7.d.] ‘Let 
each man, brethren, in that state wherein 
he was called, therein abide.’ Reiterated 
counsel, closing the digression ver. 17, 
and repeating the rule of ver. 20 with 
still higher emphasis and enhancement 
(apa Oe) : ToUTO kad mpoolmov Ka) erlAo- 
yov Tis Tapaweoews TéeHeixev, Theod. 
mapa Oc] ‘wth God,’ ‘apud Deum;’ 
dependent on the preceding pevéra, 
and deriving from it its present quasi- 


local reference: 7d 5¢ apd OeG mpocé- 
Onkev, va wh wdAw Tod Oeod adicrdueba, 
Theoph. The words may mean ‘before 
God,’ i.e. from the point of view of 
God’s judgment (Winer, Gr. § 48. d) ; 
comp. ch. iii. 19, Gal. iii. 11, al., and 
see notes zz Jocc. The local meaning, 
however, of closeness to (Donaldson, 
Cratyl. § 177) seems here better to suit 
the context, and to harmonize with the 
quasi-local idea which is introduced by 
the verb. Under either aspect the 
clause conditions, and gives a new tone 
and force to the command. It thus 
suitably closes the period and the 
digression, and gives, as it were in 
epitome, the true rationale of all the 
foregoing advice: it is only from the 
closer walk with God, and fuller realiza- 
tion of his presence, that all positions 
and relations of life can rightfully be 
maintained. On this text, see a valu- 
able sermon by Bp. Sanderson, ad Pop. 
IV. p. 203 sqq. (London, 1689). 


25-40. ules relative to virgins and 
the fathers of such, and to re-marriage. 
25. Ileal 8& trav tapQévev] ‘Vow as 
concerning virgins :’ transition, by 
means of the usual 5€ wetaBatixdy, to 
the subject of virgins, about which 
questions had been addressed to him 
by members of the Corinthian Church ; 
656 Kal rdker mpoBalywy Kal THs mupbevlas 
pvnuovever Aowwédv, Chrys. The term 
maodévo. is understood by Theodorus 
among earlier, and by Bengel and 
others among later, expositors, to refer 
to both sexes; comp. Rev. xiv. 4, in 
which case, however, the use (adjectival 
and predicative) is clearly different 
from the present. Such an interpreta- 


142 


As to virgins, it is better 
that they should remain 
so, and be more free to 
serve the Lord; and so 
of widows. 


12 “ , \ s 
vmo Kupiov muctos eva. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. VII. 25, 26. 


5 Tlepi 6€ tov Trapévwr, érutaynv Kupiov 
ovK exw, yvounv 66 did@pt ws HAENUEVOS 
Yo, yop ye enye 


26 Nopifm odv 


n \ e / \ > a by / 4 \ 
TOUTO Kadov UTdpyew Sia THY everT@oaY avayKnY, OTL KaNOV 


tion may perhaps just be lexically ten- 
able (see the exx. in Steph. 7hesaur. 
s.v. Vol. VI. p. 572, ed. Hase and 
Dind.), and may, at first sight, seem 
to derive some support from ver. 26, 
but is clearly out of harmony with ver. 
28 and 34, in which the context seems 
to preclude the wider reference. 

yournv Si8op.] ‘7 eve my opinion or 
advice, ‘consilium do,’ Vulg., Clar.; 
‘ragin giba,’ Goth., cuyBovAhy mporpepa, 
Theod.; see 2 Cor. viii. 10, and comp. 
notes oz Philem.14. It seems scarcely 
to amount here to ‘judgment’ (Auth., 
Rey.), but, in accordance with the 
tenor of the whole passage, to point 
to the ‘opinion’ which the Apostle 
had formed on the whole difficult sub- 
ject (voulfw addy eivat, Chrys.), and 
which now, not so much in his office as 
their Apostle, as in his general position 
as agidmioras eis TO Tapatvety (Phot.), he 
states as his counsel or advice: note 
the voulfw with which the next verse 
begins. motos civat] ‘to de 
faithful, ie. ‘trustworthy’ (comp. 
1 Tim. i. 15 and notes 77 Zoc.), ‘cui fides 
merito sit habenda,’ Beza; one whose 
words and advice could fully be relied 
on: he was an aéidxpews otuBovdos 
(Theod.), puornd wos moreverOau 
(Theoph.); see ver. 40. It was through 
the mercy of the Lord that he was 
enabled thus faithfully to give the 
“mind, though not the émtayhv, of his 
Master. The other renderings that 
have been adopted, e.g. ‘true’ (Riick., 
al.), or ‘believing’ (Hofmann), do not 
appear equally well to bring out the 
claim that the Apostle here puts for- 
ward for being attended to, viz. that 
by the mercy of God he was one 


whose words deserved attention. 

26. vopl{w otv] ‘/ consider there- 
fore ;’ the verb expressing the formu- 
lated opinion, and the ody, with its co/- 
lective force (‘ad ea, que antea revera 
posita sunt, lectorem revocat,’ Klotz, 
Devar. Vol. i. p. 717), basing the ex- 
pression of that opinion on the latter 
portion of the preceding verse. The 
accurate reader will observe in such 
passages as the present the fine but 
still perceptible distinction between 
this use of the particle and that of the 
more argumentative &pa. If &pa had 
been used, the present clause would 
have been more distinctly 2//ative than 
would be in harmony with the general 
nature of the context. The collective 
use of ody just preserves the mean 
between resumption and direct argu- 
ment; see, however, notes oz Gal. iii. 
5. On the two uses of ody (the reflexive 
and collective), see Klotz, Devar. /. c., 
and comp. notes o7 Phi. ii. 1. 

TovTo Kaddv trdpXew K.T.A.] ‘that this 
is good by reason of the present neces- 
sity ;’ the todro pointing forward, and 
placed prominently in the clause to 
enhance attention and prepare for the 
subsequent words 8tz «.7.A., which de- 
fine and explain it; comp. Winer, Gr. 
§ 23. 5, Kriger, Sprach/. § 51. 7. 3. 
What the Apostle advised was kaAdés: 
it was good; not merely in itself, but 
with due regard to the judgment of all 
right-minded persons; see notes on ch. 
v. 6. What especially made it good at 
the present time was the avdyxn, — the 
precursory woes and calamities asso- 
ciated with the Lord’s coming, of 
which He had distinctly spoken (Matt. 
xxiv. 8 sq.), and which even now were 


Cuap. VII. 26, 27. 


WGOREN TE. HrAN Ss. 


143 


avOpar@ 7d ottws elvar. 7 SéSecar yuvacki; un Enter Ndow- 


NéAvoas ard yuvaikes ; uy Enter yuvaixa. * éav Sé Kal yaunons, 


to be seen and felt everywhere. On 
the meaning of éveoras, and its refer- 
ence to something that had already 
commenced, see notes on Gal.i. 4, and 
also on 2 Thess. i. 2. &ru Kadov 
GvOpamw «.7.d.} ‘that it 7s good,I say, 
for aman thus to be, scil. ‘to be as he 
is,’ to remain in the state in which he 
finds himself, — an illustration of which 
follows in the succeeding verse. The 
general principle being thus enunciated, 
or rather reiterated, the application to 
virgins (about whom questions had 
apparently more particularly been 
asked) is easy and natural. It is thus 
not necessary to stretch the meaning 
of av@pérw as itself ‘utriusque sexus’ 
(Bengel) : 
tainly so in the case of the rap8évos. 

The construction is slightly irregular, 
but the meaning perfectly clear. The 
Apostle apparently feeling (while dic- 
tating) that the preceding infinitival 
clause if continued regularly by means 
of an appositional infinitive (Hofm.), 
or otherwise (comp. Meyer, 67: &v@pwros 
ottws éor:), might have left the mean- 
ing obscure, drops the infinitive and 
recommences with the more direct ért 
KaAdy K.T.A.: or, to speak more iech- 
nically, he begins with one of the three 
forms of the ‘objective’ or ‘ exponen- 
tial’ sentence, and, without finishing 
the sentence, passes over to another; 
comp. Donaldson, Gr. § 584. In clas- 
sical Greek two clauses, the one with 
8: the other with the infin., are some- 
times found in dependence on the same 
verb (see Kriiger, Sprachi. § 59. 2. 10) : 
here, however, there is only one clause 
in two forms. To avoid the difficulty 
some expositors (De Wette, al., comp. 
Vulg.) take 67: in its causal sense, but 
fall into the greater difficulty of tau- 
tology. The article before oitws 


what is caddy dvOpémw is cer- 





elvat, though not capable of being ex- 
pressed in translation, adds force and 
distinctness; see Winer, Gr. § 44. 2. 
obs. It calls attention to the general 
principle on which the Apostle frames 
his answers to the questions put to 
him. 

27. SéSeoar yuvarkl] ‘Art thou bound 
toawife?’ Explanation, by means of 
an interrogative clause, of the true 
tenor and intention of the foregoing 
counsel. The Apostle’s advice was to 
be taken with due regard to existing 
relations ; émiteive: kad avinow, Origen 
(Cramer, Caz.). Both words have been 
pressed by interpreters; 6Sédecau, ac- 
cording to Theophyl., al. being re- 
garded as marking the impeding 
character of marriage (kdkwow émipeper 
6 yauos, Theoph., comp. Origen), and 
yuvaixt, as including the case of a 
betrothed virgin-daughter (Hofmann). 
Neither view seems contextually sup- 
ported. The verb simply marks the 
marriage-bond (see Rom. vii. 2, T@ 
(@vtt avdpi vouw), and the 
substantive, as the subsequent Avouw 
seems to indicate, a married rather 
than an espoused woman. The dative 
yovaixt is the ordinary dative of juxta- 
position or proximity (Donaldson, Gr. 
§ 456), replaced sometimes in this 
formula by mpés with the accus., e.g. 
mpos %vdpa deSeuervny, lambl. Vit. Pythag. 
II. 56. eAXverar Grd yuvarkds] 
‘standest thou free from a wife?’ not 
‘hast thou been separated by death or 
desertion?’ but, more inclusively, ‘art 
thou free from the matrimonial bond ?’ 
‘denotat non solum eum qui uxori 
desiit esse alligatus, sed etiam eum qui 
nunquam alligatus fuit,’ Bengel ; comp. 
Grimm, Zex.s. v. Avw, In each clause 
the perfect has its full and proper 
force ; see notes oz Zp. ii. 7. 


dedeTat 


144 / 


CORINTHIANS: 


Cuap. VII. 28, 29. 


> id ‘ 2X / ¢€ / > ce / 
ovy juaptes* Kal av ynun 7 TapOévos, ovy Hwaptev: OrAbww 


dé 7 cupKl EEovow oi TovodToL, eyo Sé twov peiSopar. 


23 Todo 


28. yaunons] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Westc. and Hort, on preponderant 


authority: Rec., Rev., ynuns. 


The union of BN, and the likelihood of a correc- 


tion to harmonize with the subsequent yjun seem to authorize this judgment. 
The article before map@evos is doubtful, but apparently rightly retained in the 


text. 


28. éav 8 kal yapnons] ‘But if it be 
that thou shalt have married ;’ the kal, 
as usual in such collocations, throwing 
emphasis on the verb, and bringing the 
alternative into prominence. ‘The 
student will find a full discussion on 
the uses of this particle in notes ox 
Phil. iv. 12. odX fipapres] ‘Zhou 
didst not siz in that act,’ or, as the 
sequence of English tenses requires us 
to translate, ‘thou hast not sinned.’ In 
all such uses of the aorist this one 
principle has to be remembered,— that 
the tense fer se marks an event that 
belongs to the past, but is silent as to 
whether it does or does not extend to 
the present. This latter point must in 
all cases be settled by the context, and 
the translation modified accordingly ; 
see notes oz Gal. v. 24, and on I 
Thess. ii. 16, and the sensible remarks 
of A. Buttman, Gramm. WV. T. p. 172. 
On the aorist in the apodosis after édy 
with the subj., see Winer, Gr. § 4I. 
2. b. 7H wapkl] ‘27 the flesh,’ i.e. 
in bodily circumstances and relations ; 
‘dicit multas molestias conjugio an- 
nexas esse... Cavo igitur hic pro 
homine externo capitur,’ Calvin. The 
order of the words seems to indicate 
that the (intercalated) dative does not 
depend directly on the verb, but on the 
general statement (6Ahbw €fovowv), its 
use being to specify the sphere, as it 
were, in which the action takes place; 
comp. I Cor. xiv. 20, un matdia yivere 
tats ppeoiv, and see notes ov Gal. i. 22. 
This form of dative is of frequent 
occurrence in the N. T., and is quite in 


harmony with the essential idea of the 
case; see examples in Winer, G7. § 31. 
6, and comp. Rumpel, Casuslehre, p. 
288 sq. éy> S& tporv delSopar] 
‘but I spare you, the éy just marking 
the Apostolic authority of the writer, 
and so enhancing the wise counsel of 
the foregoing verses. The Apostle 
spares them, not in laying upon them 
no yoke of celibacy even when the 
very avdyxn of the times might seem 
to justify it (see Wordsworth zz Joc.), 
but in advising a single life in sucha 
period of trial. The present pe(Souce 
does not seem specially to mark the 
time then passing (‘I am sparing you,’ 
Alf.), still less to have any optative 
tinge (‘cupio infirmitati vestre con- 
sultum,’ Beza; see contra, Winer, Gr. 
§ 41. 2. obs.), but rather simply to 
state the actual and deliberate result; 
I have ‘well weighed this matter, and, 
in so speaking, spare you;’ com- 
pare Winer, Gr. § 40. 2, Kiihner, Gr. 
§ 382. 6. 

29. Todro 8é dnp] ‘ Vow this J say ;’ 
the transitional 5¢ (see notes oz Gal. i. 
II, iii. 8) introducing fresh considera- 
tions, or, rather, a new aspect of the 
subject, designed to add force to the 
advice previously given: not only were 
the days full of trial (ver. 26), but the 
time was shortened; éyyis # ouvtéAcia 
tov mapdvtos aidvos, Theod.; mpds Te 
TéAet 6 Kéouos, Sever. ; Hyyucev 7 Baoirela 
tov Xpiorod, Theoph. The use here 
of ¢nut rather than of the more usual 
A€yw (rodro St Aéyw, ch. vii. 6, Gal. iii. 
17, Col. ii. 4, al.) seems to mark, as in 





Cuap. VII. 29, 30. 


mCORINT HLA Nes: 


145 


dé dyut, aderol, 6 Kaipos cuvertadpévos éotiv, TO Nourrov iva 


Kai ol éxovTes yuvaikas ws pn ExXOVTES Bow, 


20 Kal ol KAaLoVTES 


@S 7) KNalovTES, Kal OL YalpovTEs Ws yy YalporTes, Kal oi ayopa- 


29. 6 kaipés] £/z. prefixes 871, but with clearly insufficient authority. Z/z. 
also (with ec.) adopts the order 7d Aomdv éorw, but on still less authority; 
Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, éotiv, 7d rowdy, but with differ- 


ences of punctuation; see notes below. 


ch. xv. 50, the gravity and importance 
of the statement: it was not intended 
so much to explain (Bengel, compare 
Theodorus), as to confirm and enhance, 
the foregoing counsel. © KaLpos 
ouvertadpévos éotiv] ‘the time is 
shortened ;’ the lexical usage of the 
verb ovoréAAew (‘contrahere,’ ‘ coarc- 
tare,’ Grimm, Zex. s. v.) clearly pre- 
cluding any other meaning, especially 
when thus in connection with aipés. 
The solemn statement is referred by 
some expositors (Theod. 1, Estius, 
Calvin, al.) to the shortness and tran- 
sitory nature of mortal life; ‘a brevi- 
tate humane vite ducit argumentum,’ 
Calvin. This is possible; the solemn 
form, however, of the Apostle’s words, 
and the general tenor of ver. 31, seem 
almost certainly to refer to the longed- 
for mapovaia of the Lord; see above. 
On the nature of this expectation on 
the part of St. Paul and the Apostles, 
see notes oz 1 Thess. iv. 15, 1 Zim. vi. 
14. 7) ourov tva K.7.A.] ‘727 
order that, henceforth, they also that 
have wives should be as if they had them 
not ;’ the kat slightly emphasizing the 
case of those specially under considera- 
tion, and the 7d Aoméy marking by its 
prominence the changed circumstances 
of the-new dispensation in all its future 
aspects, and echoing the sentiment of 
the foregoing clause,— ‘that for the 
future,—a future that may be of no long 
duration,’ etc.; ypnyopetre ody Stt ovK 
ofdate x.7.A.. Matt. xxv. 42. The ta 
(see a similar position of the particle, 
Gal. ii. 10) has its proper force: the 


ne 





time was shortened that so, im the 
order of God’s providential govern- 
ment of the world (comp. Winer, Gr. § 
53- 6), the whole relations of the future 
might be different from those of the 
past: 61a Thy Tod Katpod Bpaxtrnta mdvTa 
Te ev oTovdH Tow UTapXoVTa ws ovK dyTA, 
gnoty, dpetAouev nyetoOa, cum. 
(Cramer). Most of the early Versions 
(Syr., Copt. fed. De La G.}, Arm.: 
contra Vulg., Clarom., ‘reliquum est 
ut,’) and the Greek expositors. connect 
7 Aourdy with the foregoing clause: so 
Treg.. De Wette, Alf., Wordsw., al. 
This connection, however, is. contrary 
to the usual position of 7d Aouwdy in St. 
Paul’s Epp. (Phil. iii. 1, iv. 8, 1 Thess. 
iv. 1, Thess. iii. 1; comp. Eph. vi. 10). 
and seriously dilutes the force of the 
solemn 6 katpbs ouvectadkuévos éorttp. 
We seem therefore fully justified (with 
Auth., Rev., Meyer, Hofmann, al.) in 
adopting the punctuation of the text, 
and, as it would seem, the general view 
of the early Latin Church. 

30. @s ph karéxovres] ‘as Zossessing 
not, scil. as retaining not what they 
may have bought; an object accusative 
being mentally supplied in each clause: 
compare 2 Cor. vi. 10, &s pndév exovtes, 
kal mdvta karéxovtes. The necessity 
and trials of the time were to be re- 
garded as modifying all the ordinary 
conditions and relations of life ; ‘summa 
est, Christiani hominis animum rebus 
terrenis non debere occupari, nec in 
illis conquiescere: sic enim vivere nos 
oportet, quasi singulis momentis mi- 
grandum sit e vita,’ Calvin. On this 


146 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. VII. 30, 31. . 


Covres ws qi) Katéxovtes, ®!Kal of ypa@pevor Tov Kdcpov os pH 


KaTaXpwwevor* Tapdye yap TO oXha Tod Kécpov TovToU. 


2 Oédw Sé buds dpepiuvovs elvat. 6 d&yapos Mepyuva Ta TOD 


31. toy Kdouov] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very 
clearly preponderating authority: Rec. 7d kéopo robrw. 


subject generally, see the carefully con- 
sidered comments of Rothe, Z%eol. 
L£thik. § 928, Vol. Iv. page 57 sq. 
(ed. 2). 

31. Kal of Xpdpevor k.7.d.] ‘and they 
that use the world as not using it to the 
full, ‘as if they enjoyed it not,’ Arm.: 
just as they that bought were not to be 
over-anxious about retaining what they 
had bought, so they that used the 
world were only to use it up to the 
barest bound of their mere actual 
needs, and no further; pévny é abtay 
THY xXpeiav xXaptovicOwoav, Theodoret. 
The compound kataxpioda: may mark 
either (a2) ‘ferversitatem usus,’ or (6) 
‘abundantiam usus,’ there being lexical 
authority for each rendering. The 
Latin Vv. (Copt. only reproduces the 
Greek words ; Aith. paraphrases) draw 
no distinction; Syr., and the Greek 
expositors (silet Chrys.) are in favor of 
(2); Arm. and the majority of the best 
modern interpreters adopt (4),— and, as 
it would seem, rightly; the foregoing 
clauses seeming to imply in the second 
member either a simple negation of 
the verb in the first, or a negation of a 
further and derivative meaning of it 
aryopdfew, karéxew]. With this, and 
with the tenor of the whole exhortation 
(ver. 29 sq.), (4) is almost obviously 
more in contextual harmony than (a) : 
the Apostle did not limit use merely by 
abuse, but by a form of use that 
stopped decidedly short of it. 

The accus. is very unusual after 
xpic@a, but is occasionally found in 
later writers ; see Winer, Gr. § 31. I. 2. 
The suggestion of A. Buttmann is 
ingenious, and probably true,—that 


the subsequent xataxpdéuevor reflected, 
as it were, on the preceding xpéuevos 
the case with which it is (in that sense; 
see examples in Steph. 7hesaur. s. v. 
Vol. v. p. 1305, ed. Hase) found asso- 
ciated; Gramm. NV. T.p. 157 sq. On 
the use and abuse of the world see a 
wise sermon by Jones (of Nayland) 
Sermons, XXII. p. 244 sqq. (Lond. 
1829). Tapayer yap «.7.A.] ‘for 
the fashion of this world passes away,’ 
like the changing scene in a play 
(Eurip. Zo, 166); comp. 1 John ii. 17. 
The present clause is not a reason for 
6 Kkatpds ouveotaduévos éoriv (Alf.), but 
confirms the sentiment involved in the 
preceding clauses, and, as the repeti- 
tion of the word «écyos clearly implies, 
the words immediately preceding : they 
were not to take their enjoyment in 
this world, for its outward form and 
fashion was only mpéoKatpos, and des- 
tined to give place to something more 
true and durable; rawots 5 odpavods 
kal -yijv kawhy Kata Td émdyyeAua aitod 
mpoodokapev, év ofs dixaootyn KaToue?. 
2 Pet. iii. 13. The present mapdye: has 
thus more of its ethical than of its 
purely temporal meaning: it does not 
so much call attention to the actual 
present fact (‘is passing away,’ Alf.), 
as to the inevitable issue: the oxjua of 
the world, its ‘ habitus’ ‘ qui est nubere, 
flere, gaudere, emere,’ Bengel), has no 
enduring character, unity BeBnrds Kab 
ovo1@des, Theoph. On the deep ethical 
Significance of the statement, see 
Martensen, Chr. Z¢h., Part. 1. § 48, p. 
140, and on the meaning of ox7jua, and 
its distinction from soppfh, comp. notes 
on Phil. ii. 8. 





Cuap. VII. 32-34. tr CORINTHIANS. 


147 


K / lal pe an K / ‘ 83 € be , A \ an 
uplov, TOS apeon TO upl@ O O€ Yapnoas HMEpltLva TQ TOV 


c 


la lal > / ipl , 34 K x / \ e \ 
KOTLOV, TMS APEON TH YvValkt. al MEMEPLOTAL Kal ) YUVA 


\ e / . + La] \ A / ~ os ig / 
Kal 7 TapQévos. % ayauos pepiuva Ta TOD Kupiov, iva 7 ayia 


32. apeon] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly 
preponderating authority: Rec., apéoe. The above-mentioned edd. also adopt 
the subj. in verses 33 and 34. 

34. Kal meuepiora Kal] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort (but 
with differences of punctuation; see below), on very clearly preponderating 
authority in reference to the first kal, and very greatly preponderating authority 
in reference to the second: Rec. omits kai both before and after weudpiorat. 

In what follows, decision is extremely difficult. The preponderant external 
evidence seems certainly in favor of the position of # &yauos after 7 yy}: so 
Treg., Rev. (marg.), Westc. and Hort. As, however, part of this preponderant 
evidence is weakened by its admitting a second 4 &yauos after mapOévos, and 
as the above reading would necessitate the connection of kal weuépicra with 
verse 33, and thus seriously impair the clear and sharp antithesis between the 
two members of that verse, we adopt with Rec., Rev., on certainly fair external 
authority, the order in the text; believing that the confusion arose from 7 
&yauos having been accidentally inserted in early copies where it was also 
present in its proper place, and then left out in this second and proper place 
as seeming to be superfluous after map@évos. TO Ohmart kal TS mvevpart] 
So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly preponderating 
authority: Rec., odpatt kad mvevpart. 


32. OéAw Se OpasK.7.A.] ‘But [would he may please the Lord ;’ the subj unc- 





have you to be free from anxieties ;’ in 
part a resumption of the éy& 5€ buadv 
gelSoua (ver. 28), in part a statement 
- of advice under the circumstances just 
specified,— the changing nature of 
the oxjua Tod Kéouov TovTov. It was 
from no ascetic theories, but from a 
due consideration of the whole circum- 
stances of mortal life, its rd mpdoxatpor, 
its cares and anxieties, that the Apostle 
has given them the counsel already 
given in the foregoing verses; capas 
dete Thy THs TapOevias oxordv, Theod- 
oret. He now adds that he desires 
them, as far as possible, to stand free 
of the anxieties, the uépyuvar Tod aidvos 
(Mark iv. 19), which such a state of 
things necessarily involved; and of 
these, as he proceeds to show, married 
life had, by the nature of the case, its full 
share. Tas apéoy TO Kvuplw] ‘how 


tive, as usual in such forms of sentence, 
here expressing something which may 
or should take place; (see Winer, Gr. 
§ 41. 4, 4.6. In the case of the future 
(Rec.) the reference is to that which 
will take place; but in sentences like 
the present the distinction is not very 
sharply marked; comp. notes oz Phil. 
15:22. 

34. Kat pepéprorat] ‘and there is a 
division (of interests) also between the 
wife and the virgin ;’ ‘divisa est,’ 
Clarom., Copt.; ‘quam maxime diver- 
sas sibi partes habent,’ Bengel: what is 
true of the married and unmarried in 
the one sex, is also true (and even in a 
greater degree) in the other. The verb 
weuepictat does not mark, simply and 
generally, that there was a difference 
between the two, but that their cares 
and interests were essentially so differ- 


148 1 CORINTHIANS. 


{[Cuap. VII. 34, 35. 


i TO ow lL TO UuaTti 1 d€ Yaunocaca pmEepLuva TO. 
Kal TO cwpaTe Kal TO TvEevp ” yaun Hepa TO. 


TOD KOcMoUV, TAS apéon TO avopl. 


85 al \ x \ e lal 
TovTo S€ mpos TO wav 


avTav cvupopov A€yw, ovy iva Bpoyov tiv ériBddrw, adda Tpos 


35. avugopov] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very 
clearly, preponderating authority. The reading éumpdcedpov (Zec.) in the last 
clause (in place of edmdpedpov) has scarcely any external support. 


ent as practically to divide them from 
each other; cuvtduws Tis ppovtidos 7d 
didpopoy eerfe, Theodoret. On the use 
of the singular weuépiora, though as- 
sociated with two nouns, see Kihner, 
Gr. § 370. 2. b. Such a structure, 
when the predicate precedes, and the 
subjects are intended to be conceived 
singly, is by no means uncommon; see 
examples in Winer, G7. § 58. 6. b. B. 
Wa 7 ayla K.t.d.] ‘that she may be holy 
both in her body and in her spirit ;’ 
purpose and object of her pepmvay 7a 
tov Kuplov: it was a true and practical 
éptuva, NO Mere sentiment, but an 
anxious effort to become holy both in 
body and in spirit (dative of sphere in 
which the ayacuds was to take place; 
see examples in Winer, Gv. § 31. 6. a), 
even as He was holy; ‘sazctitas hic 
plus quiddam dicit, quam versu 14,’ 
Bengel. Here the moral and personal 
quality (comp. Eph. i. 4, v. 22, Col. i. 
22. al.) is more especially marked and 
emphasized. On this important word 
(connected with &(oua), which owes all 
its deeper meaning to the language of 
Revelation, see the admirable article 
in Cremer, Worterb. p. 32-50, and 
comp. also Trench, Syzon, § 88. The 
ideas of awe and reverence, which 
seem to predominate in earlier Greek, 
become suffused in the language of in- 
spiration with that of love (Cremer, p. 
33, 34), and so proportionately quick- 
ened and elevated into the highest 
moral conceptions ; see the article on 
‘Heiligung’ in Herzog, Real-Encycl. 
Vol. v. p. 679 sq. 

35. Toro St «.t.A.] ‘ But this I say 


for your own profit ;’ scil. the advice 
that has been given, directly (ver. 26) 
and indirectly (ver. 32 sq.), 8ts xaddv 
avOpémrw Td ottws civaz. The Apostle 
here distinctly marks, — First, that he 
is speaking for their sakes, and not for 
the sake of asserting his own apostolic 
authority ; secondly, that he is advo- 
cating celibacy, not in the abstract, 
but, on the one hand, with reference 
to the deep needs, and indeed the mys- 
terious hopes, of the times in which 
they were living; and, on the other 
hand, with reference to their greater 
freedom (especially in such times) from 
worldly anxieties and distractions : 
arédwkev Thy aitlay... ov Tapa Thy Kol- 
THY i) Thy aroxhy THs KolTns, GAAG Tape 
Td Toy yduov yeuey ppovTidwy, Severian, 
apud Cramer, Caten. odx tva 
Bpsxov dpiv éemBdro ‘ ot that J may 
cast @ noose over you ;’ scil. not that I 
may impose on you any entangling con- 
straint, ovx iva avayndow buas, CEcum. : 
‘laqueo trahuntur inviti,’ Bengel. The 
metaphor is from the capture of wild 
game (Xen. Cyneget. U1. 4, VI. 7, Aris- 
toph. Aves, 527), and points, not to 
any snare of conscience which the 
Apostle might thus be laying for them, 
but simply to the coercive character 
which the command might carry with 
it, but which the Apostle here disa- 
VOWS; Thy yap avdyKny Bpdxov karei, 
CEcum.; comp. Hofmann 77 Joc. 

GANA mpds 7d etoXnpov K.T.A-] ‘but 
with a view to what is seemly, and to 
waiting upon the Lord without distrac- 
tion ;’ statement of the Apostle’s pur- 
pose on its positive side; he did not 


Cuap. VII. 35, 36. 


TO eUoxnmov Kal evrapedpov TS Kupio amepiotraates. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


149 


36 Ki 6€ 


a La > fa) > 
Tis aoxnuwovely ert THY TapUEvoy avTOU vowifeL, Edy 7 UTEpaKpos, 


Kal ovtws opeider yiverOar, 6 Oérer TroveiTw: ovy dpapTaver: 


wish to put any constraint on them, 
but to lead them to that seemly atti- 
tude and aspect of Christian life (com- 
pare Rom. xiii. 13, 1 Thess. iv. 12) 
which the exigencies of the times in 
which they were living required of 
all who were in earnest. The words 
that follow form one compound ex- 
pression under the vinculum of the 
foregoing article, the dative being un- 
der the regimen of the substantive 7d 
evmdpedpov (Winer, Gr. § 31. 3), and 
the adverb amepiomdotws (‘sine distrac- 
tione,’ Est.; comp. Luke x. 40, 7 5 
Map0a mepieomato wep) ToAAHY Siakoviav) 
being closely bound up with and en- 
hancing the words which precede it. 
It was to be a genuine mapedpeve TG 
Kupiw, without any admixture of worldly 
cares ; ‘non cogitantes de mundo,’ Syr. 

36. Hi 8€ rus «.t.d.] ‘ But of any one 
thinketh that he is acting towards his 
virgin daughter in a manner not seemly,;’ 
contrasted (d¢) aspect of the matter: 
if any one thinks that he is not acting 
evexnudvws towards his virgin daughter 
(rhv oikelay maida, Theodorus), but ina 
contrary manner; mdAw évtaid@a meph 
Tay undérw Thy TapOeviay eAouevwy Tape- 
keAevoato, Theodoret. The verb acx7- 
fovety may mean either (a) to act un- 
becomingly,’ 1 Cor. xiii. 5, 7 a&ydarn ovK 
aoxnuovel; or (4) ‘to suffer shame,’ as 
apparently in Deut. xxv. 3, Ezek. xvi. 
39; comp. Vulg. (‘turpem se videri’), 
Syr. (‘ quod despectus sit’), Eth., Arm., 
Phot., al., and see Schleusner, Zex. s.v., 
Wetst. 27 Joc. According to this latter 
view the doxnuootvn would appear tojbe 
involved in the fact of a marriageable 
daughter still remaining single (comp. 
Theod.): as, however, the general 
tenor of the passage appears to refer 


to what is &exnuor in act, as opposed 
to what is e¥exnuoy in act, and as the 
use of emt in the prepositional clause 
(em thy mapOevoy avtod) is much more 
naturally associated with a verb in an 
active than in a passive sense, we un- 
hesitatingly adopt (a), and understand 
the clause to refer to the aoxnuoctyn 
involved in throwing temptation in the 
way of the map@évos or her suitor, by 
constraining her to remain unmarried. 
So Chrys. (but ?), ap. Cramer, Caz., and 
the great majority of modern exposi- 
tors. A few early interpreters appear to 
have considered that the reference may 
be to the man’s own rapevia. This, 
as Severian rightly observes, is pre- 
cluded by the terms and tenor of the 
present and of the following verses. 

éav  trépaxpos] ‘2 she have passed 
the marriageable prime, —the xpédvov 
apis (Plato, Rep. VI. p. 460 E; ‘zetas 
nubilis,’ Calvin) judged customarily as 
suitable for marriage: clause closely 
associated with the foregoing (Westc. 
and /Yort remove the usual comma), 
and pointing to that which would sug- 
gest to the father or guardian that he 
was acting in an unfair and unseemly 
manner towards his map@évos. While 
she was under age he was not wrong 
in keeping her at home. The age 
referred to would of course vary in 
different countries: ‘hanc [ztatem nu- 
bilem] jurisconsulti ab anno duodecimo - 
ad vicessimum definiunt,’ Calvin. The 
métpios xpdvos axuys is defined by Plato 
(Zoc. cet.) as twenty years. Kal 
ottas ddetrhe ylver Oar] ‘ and zt ought so 
to be ;’ scil. and the marriage ought 
(‘debet: eo quod melius consulere filiz 
nescit,’ Bengel), after due consideration 
of the circumstances, to take place: 


150 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. VII. 36, 37. 


Wy 873 Oe ” 2) n bli > n ES al \ 
yape:Twoay. Os O€ EOTHKEV EV TH KApOi@ aAvTOU Edpaios, py 


éyav avayenv, éEovoiay Sé yer mept Tod idiov OeAjparos, Kal 


TovTO Kéxpixev ev TH idia Kapdia, ThpElv THY éavTOdD TrapOéEvor, 


37. €v TH Kapdia adrod ESpaios] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and 


fort, on greatly preponderating authority in regard of the position of €dpaios, 
and still greater for the retention of adrov: Rec. omits abrod, and places édpatos 


before év TH Kapdia. 


TH idia Kapdia, Tnpev.] So Tisch., Treg., Rev., Weste. 


and Hort, on preponderating authority: Rec., TH Kapdia abtov rod tnpeiv; Lachm., 


7H Kapdia Type. 


mornoe] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc. and 


ffort, on preponderating authority: (ec., more. 


clause dependent on the foregoing ¢i, 
and pointing out the other circum- 
stances, beside the feeling of the father 
or guardian, which ought in fairness 
to have weight; see Phot. zz Zoc., who 
very pertinently remarks éxovo.oy yap 
The 
ovtws is regarded by Hofmann as re- 
ferring to, and serving to introduce the 
® O€Aec moreirw, but is much more natu- 
rally referred to the predominant 
thought of the whole verse, —mar- 
riage, as contrasted with celibacy ; ofoy 
éxdodvat, Phot. 8 Oéder troveirw] 
Slet him do what he will ;’ i.e. that 
which he desireth to do; not ‘liberum 
sit ei elocare filium aut non elocare,’ 
Est., but ‘let him act in accordance 
with the opinion he has formed (voui¢er) 
in reference to the particular case;’ 
Td doxody mparrérw, Theod. The father 
or guardian is to be free to follow out 
the course to which his thoughts have 
been directing him. yapelraray] 
‘let them marry ;’ scil. the daughter 
and the one who has sought her in 
marriage. The case, then, contemplated 
in the verse only occurs when the 
map0évos has been sought in marriage. 
To refer the yauelrwoay to mapbéva 
generally, or to their suitors generally, 
is obviously forced and unsatisfactory. 
The whole tenor of the verse implies 
that there was another in the case be- 
side the father or guardian and the 
map0evos. 


GAN odK Gkovatoy Td Tis TapOevias. 


37. 5s Bt Eornuev k.r.d.] ‘But he who 
standeth firm, or stedfastin his heart ;’ 
the contrasted case. The epithet com- 
ing at the close gives an additional 
force to the clause, —‘standeth, and 
that éSpaios’ (ch. xv. 58, Col. i. 23): 
€dpaidy Twa brotibera &vOpwrov: dy ovK 
trxvoev oadreioat 7 Soxodoa mapa Tots 
avOporas aoxnnwootyn, emt Tay pvAaTTor- 
Twv Tapbévous Tas Ouyatépas, CEcum. ap. 
Cramer, Catez. 

BH} éXxe@v dvayknv] ‘ot having any 
necessity ;’ scil. not morally constrained 
to act otherwise, whether from a fear 
of the adoxnuoveiy specified in the pre- 
ceding verse, or from any other reason 
founded on what was best for the 
map0évos under the circumstances (kat 
odtws dpeiAcr yiveoOut, ver. 36). The 
term dvdyxn and the general tenor of 
the verses show that the feelings of the 
map0évos are not alluded to as forming 
any element in the decision of the 
father (contra Phot.), except only so 
far as they might render the dpeiaea 
still more clear. Duty is the pre- 
dominating principle. eEourlav 
St exer «.t.A.] ‘but hath power in regard 
of his own will :’ clause in antithesis to 
the foregoing, and so slightly irregular 
in its relapse to the indicative, though 
thus better connected with what 
follows: see examples in Winer, G7. § 
63. 2. b, and comp. Buttmann, /Vezfest. 
Gr. p. 327. The genitive might here 
have been used without the mepf (as in 


LY CORIN Til ANS). 


Cuap. VII. 37, 38. 151 


Bote Kat 0 yapitwy thy tapGévoy EéavTod 
39 Turvy 


fal / 
KaXNWS TrOLNCEL. 
KAS Trove, Kal 6 wn yaullwv KpEicooY Troijoel. 


38. yaulCwv thy mapdévoy avrod] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg. Rev., Westc. and 
Hort, on greatly preponderating authority: Rec. exyaulwv. 
éavtotd] So Lachm., Treg., Rev., on apparently preponderating authority; Z7sch., 
Westc. and Hort (with marg.), thy éavtod mapOévoy: Rec. omits the three words. 
In what follows Rec. reads 6 5¢ wh éxyaui(wy, but with greatly preponderating 


Thy mapOévov 


authority against it. 
Rev., Westc. and Hort adopt mojoe 
Rec., woes. 


Matt. x. 1, and elsewhere), but, as 
Winer correctly observes (Gr. § 30. 3. 
5), would not have had the fulness and 
definiteness which it gains by its union 
with the preposition. This ought to 
be marked in translation: contrast 
Auth., al. Kal TodTo KéKpLKEV 
K.T.A.] ‘and hath decided this in his own 
heart, that he keep his own virgin ;’ the 
explanatory infinitive (Winer, Gv. § 44. 
1, Kiihner, Gv. 472. I. c, and notes oz 
1 Thess. iv. 3) serving to define more 
clearly the meaning of the pronoun. 
This repetition of the ws seems 
almost designed to mark how com- 
pletely the matter was left with the 
father and regarded as dependent on 
his deliberate judgment. It may be 
that the virgin’s resolves are blended 
in one with the parent’s (Wordsw.) ; 
but this, at any rate, is not in any way 
specified. The very position of the 
present clause in its close connection 
with the Kadés mohoe—not, as it 
might have been, at the very beginning 
of the verse,—is not without signifi- 
cance. The act is praised when it is 
indisputably the result of a well-con- 
sidered decision on the part of the 
parent or guardian: see Hofmann zz 
loc. Kados toujoe] ‘he will do 
well ;’ he will not merely stand in the 
position of one who odx auaprdve: (ver. 
36), but will be doing that which (as 
conditioned by the terms of the fore- 
going statement) is positively and 


At the close of the verse Lachm., 


Tisch., Treg., 
on slightly preponderating authority: 


morally right; wéya kar@pOwoev, Phot. 
ap. Cramer, Cazen. 

38. dore] ‘So then, consequently ;’ 
statement of the substance of, and 
what fo//ows from, the two verses which 
have preceded; &ore here, as usual, 
marking conseguence. In English it is 
scarcely possible to make a regular dis- 
tinction in translation between é0Te 
and Gp ovv. In the Greek, however, 
the distinction is very clear, the latter 
particles expressing a strongly drawn 
inference, the former simply noting the 
‘consecutionem alicujus rei ex ante- 
cedentibus,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. Il. p. 
771: comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 586. 3, 
Wilke, Ret. § 81, p. 265. Kal 6 
yopifov... Kal 6 pa) yap. K.7.A.] ‘doth 
he that giveth his own virgin in mar- 
riage doeth well, and he that giveth (her) 
not in marriage will do— better” In 
this sentence the xa} — ral is apparently 
correlative (‘both —and’), though the 
termination of the two clauses is not 
strictly similar but contrasted; the 
same idea of radomotla being common 
to both; compare ch. i. 22, and see 
Winer, Gr. § 53. 4. rem. ins 
clear from this passage and from the 
general tenor of the chapter that St. 
Paul, speaking from his own convic- 
tions, deemed that single life was 
better; but it must not be forgotten 
that in so speaking he was taking 
special account of the peculiar trials 
and exigencies of the times ; see Rothe, 


152 


1 CORINTHIANS: 


Cuap. VII. 39, 40. 


déderas éf’ dcov xpovov Ef 6 avnp adris: éav Sé KoyunOA 6 avijp, 


e 


ehevbépa éotiv & Oérer yaunOjvar, wovov év Kupio.  waxapio- 


t 
\ ef 


/ an 
Tépa O€ éoTW éay oUTas pEivn, KaTa THY eunv yvounv: S0Kd 


dé Kayo IIvedpa Ocod éyew. 


39. 8€deru] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very clearly 


preponderating authority: Rec. adds véuw, probably from Rom. vii. 2. 


In the 


words that follow, aris is added by Rec. to avhp (2d place), but is rejected in 
the above-mentioned edd. on clearly preponderating authority. 


Theol. Ethik, § 1080, Vol. Vv. p. 13 
(ed. 2). 

39. S€éerar] ‘2s bownd,’— obviously, 
as the context suggests, 7@ dayvdpl: 
compare Rom. vii. 2. The Apostle 
had spoken about the remarriage of 
Xfipa in a previous portion of the 
chapter (ver. 8) : he here reverts to the 
subject of remarriage, probably in 
answer to a question put to him by 
the Corinthian Church. That question 
does not seem to have been one on the 
subject of divorce generally (Wordsw.), 
but one called out by the known 
opinions of the Apostle, and was prob- 
ably to this effect,—‘ Was remarriage, 
in the case of the death of a husband, 
to be considered perfectly permissible ?’ 
This the Apostle answers distinctly in 
the affirmative (é€Acv0épa éorly & OérAc 
yaun@jva), but adds a cautionary 
condition. On the subject of second 
marriage generally, see Rothe, Zheol. 
Lthik, § 1082, Vol. v. p. 34 sqq. 
éav St.7.d.] ‘ bautifher husband be dead;’ 
literally, ‘have fallen on sleep ’ (fut. 
exact), an obvious and natural euphem- 
ism found in writers of all periods 
(Hom. //. xi. 241, Kotwhoato xdAKeov 
tmvov; Theocr. /dyl/. 111. 49, &tpomos 
tmvos; Hor. Carm. I. 24. 5, ‘perpetuus 
sopor’), but more especially in the 
writers of the Old and New Testament 
(Deut. xxxi. 16, 1 Kings ii. Io, al., ‘slept 
with his fathers ;’ John xi. 11, 2 Pet. iii. 
4, al.) ; see notes oz I Thess. iv. 13. 
povov év Kuplw] ‘only in the Lord ;’ 


the yaun@jva is to be so conditioned : 
it is to be an act done, as it were, in 
that holy element, and as the Lord 
Himself would direct. It is clearly 
more than merely peta owhpootvns, 
Meta Koouidrntos. It distinctly zmplies 
that it is to be a marriage with a 
Christian (éuoriorw, Theod. 1; so 
Tertullian, Cyprian, Jerome, al.) ; other- 
wise the expression év Kupi» would be 
inapplicable, or, at any rate, void of its 
fuller significance: compare Weiss, 
Bibl. Theol. § 95. 6, Vol. U p. 95 
(Transl.). On the expression év Kupi, 
see Cremer, Worterb. p. 385, and 
compare notes oz Zh. iv. I, vi. I, al. 
40. pakapiwrépa] ‘wore blessed,’ sc. 
more spiritually happy in such a de- 
cision, as being more free to serve the 
Lord continuously and without dis- 
traction ; comp. ver. 34. The word, as 
De Wette rightly observes, has in the 
N. T. always a higher meaning than 
that of mere happiness. In the earliest 
Greek the epithet in the shorter form 
udxap is frequently associated with deol 
(comp. I Tim. i. 11, vi. 15, and Suicer, 
Thesaur. s. v. Vol. Il. p. 289), the ideas 
of ‘might’ and ‘greatness’ being those 
conveyed by the original root (ma): 
see Curtius, Ztym. No. 90, p. 148 (ed. 
2), Fick, Zzdo-Germ. Worterb. p. 144. 
In regard of the sentiment expressed, it 
may be said that just as Mary (Luke x. 
42) might be regarded as maxapiwtépa 
in reference to her over-busy sister 
Martha, so might the widow who re- 





Cnap. VII. 4o-VIII. t. 


An idol has no real ex- 
istence, and so eating 
what is offered to itis a 
matter of indifference; 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


153 


VILL. IHepi S€ tev cidwroPdrwv, oldapev 
éTu TaVTEsS yoaow exapev. 


¢ lal a 
yas pucrot, 


but, for the sake of the weak, it should be avoided. 


mains so, in reference to one who 
marries again and becomes necessarily 
involved in the anxieties and cares of 
daily life, at a time, too, marked with 
avdyxn (ver. 26) and trials. The 
Apostle conditions this by the kara 
Thy euny yvounyv (‘my judgment,’ Kara 
Thy euhv mapatyeow 
Phot.), but again enhances that yvdun 
by what follows. SoKa St Kaya] 
‘and I think that I also, —TI, as well as 
other teachers; the 5é€ introducing the 
enhancing, and so slightly contrasted, 
clause which marks the real character 
of the yvéun. In the Sox there is 
nothing of a rebukeful tone towards 
any who might doubt the Apostle’s 
words (Wordsworth): it is simply 
bmrovo@, 7yovuat (CXcum.); implying, 
however, in its very reserve the grave 
claim to attention which the counsel 
demanded. The kal in the kayé ap- 
parently does not point to any special 
class of opponents, but simply con- 
trasts the speaker with others, whoso- 
ever they might be, who, not unlikely, 
claimed to speak with plenary author- 
ity: comp. Hofmann 27 Joc. In 
the text Westc. and Hort (Treg. marg.) 
read Sox@ ydp, but on authority [B; 17; 
37; Tol., Syr.-Harcl., al.] which, though 
of critical importance, can hardly be 
considered sufficient, even when resting 
on internal grounds, to justify the 
change. IIvetpa Ocot] ‘che 
Spirit of God:’ tadta ék To’ mavaryiov 
TIveduatos Aadoduev, Phot. The full 
and obvious meaning of these words is 
in no way to be dibuted; the Apostle in 
fact claims to be, and truly claims to 
be, an dpyavoy (Theod.) of the Holy 
Spirit. The assertion, often made, and 
at first sight plausible, that Mvedua 
without the article marks an opera- 
20 


kal ouuBovrnhy, 


tion or gift of the Spirit, rather than 
the personal Spirit (Westcott, oz 
John vii. 39) cannot be regarded as of 
universal application in the N. T. 
Sometimes [vevua appears distinctly to 
have the same latitude as a proper 
name (see Winer, Gr. § 19. I. a); 
sometimes, as here, it is associated with 
aeword that is frequently anarthrous, 
and so, on the principle of correlation 
(Middleton, Ar¢. 111. 3. 6, Kiihner, Gr. 
§ 462), commonly becomes also anar- 
throus: see notes oz Gal. v. 5, and 
consider the examples in Winer, Gr. § 
19. I, S. v. eds and Mvedua. 


Iv. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS RELATIVE 
TO THE EATING OF MEATS OFFERED 
TO IDOLS, AND TO THE TAKING PART 
IN FEASTS MADE IN THEIR HONOR 
(ch. viii. I-xi. I.). 

VIII. 1-13. Zhe right view of idols 
and things offered to them, with the 
modifying judgment of charity. 

1. [lept 8 trav ciSado8btwy] ‘ Vow con- 

cerning the things offered to idols ;’ 

transition, by means of the usual 8& 

petaBatindy (notes oz Gal. i. 11), to 

another subject which had been brought 
before the Apostle by the questions 
addressed to him. The actual answer 
is deferred till ver. 4,— when the sub- 
ject is resumed after the parenthetical 
comments (7 yv@ots puctot. .. 
tm’ avrov) suggested by the statement 
otSauev bTt TdyTes yyaow exouev. To 
make the parenthesis begin with drt 

(‘guéa. Declaratur 76 scémus,’ Bengel, 

al.) is structurally harsh, and exegetic- 

ally improbable, as otSouey 671 in ver. I 

and ver. 4 seem corresponsive, and the 

811 in doth cases exponential, ‘we know 

that,’ etc. The sentence is in fact in 

each an ordinary expository, or, as it is 


eyvworat 


154 


FS ee aob a 22 
9 O€ AYaTTN OLKOOOLEL. €l TL 


sometimes called, objective sentence: 
see Donalds. Gr. § 584 sq. The 
term elSwAd@uta occurs Acts xv. 20, 
where it is a sort of compendious mode 
of expressing the dAiwyhuara Tay 
eidéAwv mentioned by St. James in ver. 
20: comp. Acts xxi. 25, Rev. ii. 14, 20. 
These cidwAd@uta were the ‘carnes 
animalium e_ sacrificiis relique’ 
(Valck.), which, after the priest had 
taken his portion, were returned to 
those who had offered them, and were 
commonly consumed at feasts, either 
in the temple (comp. ver. Io), or in 
their own houses (comp. ch. xi. 27), it 
being the regularly received principle, 
tTovs ék Oucias idvtas epew ek avTis 
6uclas vixelors. Where they were not 
thus disposed of they were sold in the 
market: comp. ch. x. 25. On the 
customs connected with sacrifices, see 
Hofmann, Lex. Universale, (Contin.), 
s. v. ‘ Victime,’ Vol. 11. p. 181, Her- 
mann, Gottesdienstl. Alterth. § 28, and 
on the absence of all reference to the 
decision in Acts xv. 20, Bp. Lightfoot, 
Dissert. on Gal. iii. 2. TAY TES 
yao exopev] ‘we all have kxowledge,’ 
scil. in regard of this particular matter, 
the nature of cidwAd6vta. The exact 
reference of these words is a little 
doubtful. It has been urged, on the 
one hand, that the Apostle is here 
referring to the more illuminated (pbs 
Tavs TeActous Siadéyerat, Theoph.), ‘I 
and all rightly informed persons ;’ so 
Meyer, al. On the other hand, the 
statement has been referred generally 
to all Christians, ‘We ail of us, as 
Christians and not pagans;’ so De 
Wette, ai. In the first case, however, 
the cautionary and corrective clause 7 
yvaois uo. «.T.A. seems to have no 
particular force. In the second case 
there seems no need whatever for the 
mdavtes. We, therefore, with Hofmann, 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. VIII. 1. 


Soxel éyvaxévar TL ovTM eyrw 


al., regard the words as referring to the 
Corinthians, and perhaps as taken 
from their very letter. The cautionary 
clause then comes in with its natural 
and appropriate force, ‘We know, to 
use your own words, that, etc. ; remem- 
ber, however, that it is not on knowl- 
edge, but on love that everything really 
turns.’ The apparently converse state- 
ment which then follows in ver. 7, gaa’ 
ovk ev mao 7) yv@ous, becomes perfectly 
intelligible; ‘you may think that all 
among you have this true knowledge, 
but it really is not so; there are some 
whose conscience is greatly exercised 
in the matter.’ The Apostle, it should 
be observed, is not so much definitely 
censuring (Chrys.), or dealing ironically 
(Theod.), with the Corinthians who put 
the question (probably in the form ‘are 
we not perfectly free in the matter?’ 
nui ovk éoTw cidwdAdOuvtov, Sever.), as 
bringing home to them the fact that 
the answer was not quite so easy as 
they might suppose, as it depended not 
merely on -yry@ots, but on aydrn. Com- 
pare Calvin zz /oc., who appears to 
have rightly caught the general senti- 
ment of the passage: so too Chrysostom, 
except that he sees in the words a more 
direct censure of the Corinthians than 
the context.seems to imply. q 
yaois vot «t.A.] ‘Knowledge 
puffeth up, but love edifieth ;’ the article 
giving each noun its most generic 
meaning and application (Middleton, 
Greek Art.v. 5.1, p.89) : comp. Winer, 
Gr. § 19. I. a, note. Knowledge, the 
Apostle says, regarded in the abstract, 
tends to puff up with pride: love, on 
the other hand, builds up alike the 
individual towards whom it is shown 
(Rom. xiv. 15), and the Church gene- 
rally (Eph. iv. 12, 16): comp. Harless, 
Chr. Ethics, § 38. 1, p- 327 (Transl.), 
and on the contrast between the knowl- 


g 
By 





Cuap. VIII. 2, 3. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


155 


be 5 A a Pre aed dé ? A \ a) , ® 4 
KaAU@S O€EL yvovat €l O€ TLS ayaTra TOV €0V, OUTOS EYVMOTAL 


2. et tis] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly pre- 


ponderating authority: ec. ei dé Tis. 


edd., on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec., eidévat. 


éyvwkévat] So the above-named 
In what 


follows, ow éyvw is adopted in all the above edd.,—ot#mw on clearly prepon- 
derating authority, ¢yyw and the omission of od5év on very greatly peponderating 


authority: Rec., obdémw obdtv &yvwxe. 


edge which is of faith and the 
knowledge here referred to, see 2. § 
18. 4, p- 159 sq. 

2. et tes Soxet K.T.d.] ‘Jf any man 
thinketh that he knoweth anything ;’ 
elucidation of the 7 yva@o1s pvouol, the 
absence of any connecting particle 
giving the words a fuller didactic force. 
The Apostle makes it clear in what 
sense he was using the word yvéots, 
viz. not as a real and true, but only as 
a supposed, knowledge; the Sore? (‘ ex- 
istimat,’ Vulg.) implying some amount 
of subjective persuasion on the sub- 
ject : see notes on ch. iii. 18, and comp. 
Hofm. zz loc. The reading of the text, 
éyvwrévat, is here, on exegetical as wellas 
critical grounds, much more consonant 
with the tenor of the passage than eid¢- 
vat; the idea of mental attention on the 
part of the knower (‘cognoscere’), and 
so, of more inward knowledge, being 
that which is here involved in the con- 
text: eid¢va: (‘scire ’) would only imply 
that the object or fact came within 
the sphere of observation; see notes 
on ch. ii. 11. ote eyva k.T.d.] 
‘he doth not yet know as he ought to 
know ;’ not merely ‘he has had no 
practice in the art of knowing’ (AIf.), 
but, ‘he has not yet come to the 
knowledge of the true manner (‘ videli- 
cet per viam amoris,’ Bengel) in which 
he ought to know.’ Without love 
(comp. ch. xiii. 2) his knowledge will 
never be more than a mere superficial 
knowledge, —a knowledge of no real 
use in the practical questions now 
under consideration. The ovdérw ovdév 
of Rec. would make the comment more 


caustic, as it would imply that the 6 
dox@y K.7.A., not only had not yet come 
to know the matter properly, but had 
not yet even come to know properly 
anything at all,—not even his own 
ignorance: comp. Hofmann 7z7z doc. 

3. el SE Tis Gyamwdg Tov Ocdv] ‘ But if 
any man loveth God:’ has love in its 
highest and fullest degree—for God 
is love (1 John iv. 17) and love of Him 
includes all other forms of love; 
‘amorem Dei sequitur amor proximi,’ 
Bengel. otros tyvaotat ba” 
avtod] ¢izs man’ (emphatic, — he, and 
not the 6 doxav eéyvwkeva) ‘2s known of 
Him ;’ scil. is himself the object of 
the highest conceivable knowledge, — 
the divine knowledge; see Winer, Gr. 
§ 39, rem. 2, comp. Gal. iv. 9. The 
interpretations of this clause are very 
numerous, some intercalating a thought 
not in the context (kndeuovias ruyxavet, 
Theod. ; ‘reputatur inter filios,’ Calvin ; 
‘precognitus est, praedilectus ac pre- 
destinatus,’ Est.), others giving the 
verb a causative sense (‘scire factus 
est ab eo,’ Beza), for which there is 
not a shadow of lexical authority. The 
true and natural interpretation seems 
perfectly clear: the Apostle, instead 
of saying, ‘he that loves God has 
yveois in its truest form,’ drops the 
lower thought and takes the higher 
one, ‘is himself the object of God’s 
knowledge,’ the higher thought here 
necessarily involving the lower. That 
he whom God vouchsafes to know has 
himself true knowledge is a truth that 
may be regarded as almost self-evi- 
dent; so rightly, Theophyl.: ywwords 5¢ 


156 


{fee | > a 
UT QAUTOU. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. VIII. 3-5. 


4IIepi tis Bpdcews ody Tov eidwrofuTwy, oldapev 


\ v \ ‘ ? \ 
OTL ovdev eldwrov ev KOTU@, Kal OTL ovdels Oeos ei py els. 


5 \ \ ” 32% / 6 \ v > > fal ” ai % ro 
Kat yap ELTTEp ELOLV EryoMEvoL €Ol €LTE EV ovupave ELTE ETTL YS, 


4. ovdels Geds] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very 
greatly preponderating authority: ec. adds €repos. 


YEvouevos TH OCG yvaow wap’ avrov Aap- 
Bdvee On the deep meaning of the 
‘being known of God’ (Ex. xxxiii. 12, 
17, Gal. iv. 9, 2 Tim. ii. 19), comp. Se- 
verian (Cramer, Cate7.), AawBdveta yap 
To THS yudoews Kal em) oikermoews (he 
explains the @yywora x.7.A. by the 
words oiketodrat Tovs ayanayras), domep 
Td Tis ayvotas ka) ém) GAAOTpidcEws* ody 
€ort Td) dtd TOU Kuplou pebev Td, amerOeTe, 
ovdémore éyvwy tuas; see also the valu- 
able remarks of Hofmann, Schriftbew. 
Part I. p. 225 (ed. 1), and comp. Suicer, 
Thesaur. Vol. 1. p. 762+ 

4. Ilep tis Bpdoews odv «.T.A.] 
‘Concerning then the eating of things 
offered to idols ;’ ov having here its 
resumptive force (.ee notes oz Gal. iii. 
5, and oz Phil. iii. 1), referring back to 
ver. 1. On the collective force of this 
particle, see above, notes on ch. vii. 
26. The frequent occurrence of this 
particle in the N.T. renders it difficult 
to maintain any rigid rule of transla- 
tion; but, in cases like the present, 
the lighter ‘ then’ (‘igitur,’ Beza), seems 
more exact than the heavier and more 
illative ‘ therefore’ (Auth., Rev.). The 
insertion of the words rs Bpdoews de- 
fines more exactly the more general 
eldwAoOtTwy in ver. I. ovdiv 
eiSwdrov év Kdope] ‘Zhere is no idol in 
the world ;’ no image or likeness— 
the emphasis slightly resting on e%wAov 
—to which there is any corresponding 
reality. Idols there were, but that 
which they were understood to repre- 
sent had no existence; an idol was a 
avtacia Wevdijs, Hab. ii. 18 (LXX),a 
name only (dvduata bmd pavaAou kad avoh- 
wov 8dtms memoinueva, Joseph. Axztig. 


vu. 14. 6), and not a being’s image. 
So De Wette, Meyer, Hofmann, and 
most modern expositors. The usual 
rendering, ‘az idol is nothing in the 
world, scil. is a ‘non-ens’ (Arm.), and 
has nothing in the world which answers 
to it, is supported by Syr., Vulg. (‘nihil 
est idolum’), Clarom., Copt,, Arm., 
Theoph. Gécum., Bengel, Auth., al., 
but is open to the grave exegetical 
objection that thus, in two contiguous 
and closely similar clauses the same 
word (ovde/s) would be used predica- 
tively in one clause, but attributively 
in the other ; and further, that év kéouw 
would thus be unmeaning and otiose. 
These objections appear to be so valid 
that, inspite of the almost unanimous 
authority of the ancient Vv. (except 
apparently A£th.-Pol.), we.seem justified 
in regarding ovdty efdwAoy x.7.A. and 
ovdels @eds x.7.A. as structurally parallel. 
So apparently Chrys., though usually 
claimed on the other side. 

5. Kal yap elarep «.7.d.] ‘Hor even if : 
there really exist gods so-called ;’ ex- 
planation of the two statements in 
the preceding verse, the «ai annexing 
closely, and here with some slightly 
ascensive force, the confirmatory ydp 
(see notes oz Phil. ii. 27), and the rép 
the ef%rep (‘si omnino,’ Klotz, Devar. 
Vol. II. p. 228), as usually, giving point 
to and enhancing the condition, —‘ if 
there really are, as is alleged,’ etc.: 
see notes oz Gai. ili. 4, Kriiger, Sprachi. 
§ 69. 23, and on the use of the wép, the 
excellent comments of Kiihner, Gv. § 
510: see also below. The Apostle 
does not here assert that these so- 
called gods exist, but simply puts the 


Cuap. VIII. 5, 6. 


1 CORINTHIANS. Tt 


@oTrep eialy Oeol moANol Kal KuptoL TOOL, “GAN aHpuiv cis Ocds 
e 
6 


/ > « \ 4 5, ) a > > / 2 i Ko 
TaTHpP e& OU TX TTAVTA KAL NMELS ELS GAVUTOV, KAL ELS uptos 


5: yns] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on vastly pre- 


ponderating authority: ec. prefixes rijs. 


case hypothetically, as an assumed 
possibility, basing the assumption on 
the statement in the last clause of the 
verse; see below. Who the Apostle 
really deemed these so-called @eoi actu- 
ally to be, comes out clearly in ch. x. 
20; see Weiss, &70/. Theol. § 70. ¢, 
Vol. 1. p. 360 (Transl.), and comp. Mar- 
tensen, Chr. Dogm. § 68. obs. p. 129 
(Transl.). See below. elre 
év otpave cite ert yis] ‘whether in 
heaven or on earth ;’ whether beings 
supposed to dwell in heaven, like the 
Olympian deities, or on earth, like the 
local deities of the woods and rivers. 
The words serve to explain the Aeydé- 
evar Ocol which the Apostle then had 
in his thoughts. domep cioly 
K.T.A.] ‘7st as there exist gods many 
and lords many ;’ superhuman beings, 
angels and powers, to whom these 
titles are conventionally given (Deut. 
X. 17; comp. xxxii. 17); the Somep 
bringing out sharply (wép acuit eam 
notionem cui subjecta est,’ Klotz, De- 
var. Vol, Il. p. 724; comp. Donalds. 
Crat. § 178, and see further references 
in notes on ver. 13) the statement that 
follows. The eisiv thus has the same 
meaning in both clauses— real, not 
supposed existence (De Wette, al.), 
the emphatic position of the verb in 
both clauses appearing distinctly to 
imply this stronger meaning. The in- 
terpreters who, like De Wette, con- 
sider both clauses as spoken ‘from 
the standpoint of Gentile superstition’ 
(comp. Theoph., C&cum.), are con- 
strained not only to give a weaker force 
to the eioiy than its position would 
seem to require, but to take e¥mep ina 
concessive sense (‘etsi,’ Vulg., «i xat 


eiot Aeyouevor Geol, Theoph.) which it is 
doubtful whether the particle bears 
directly in ordinary Greek prose ; comp. 
Kihner, Gr. § 578. obs. 2, where, it 
will be observed, all the examples are 
from Homer. 

6. GAN *piv els K.t.d.] ‘ Vet to us 
there is one God, the Father ;’ apodosis 
to the efmep k.7.A. of ver. 5, the &Aad 
having its sharp antithetical force and 
contrasting what follows with the as- 
sumption of the preceding verse; see 
Klotz, Devar. Vol. Il. p. 93, and notes 
on ch. iv. 15. The words 6 rarnp, like 
the "Inoods Xpiords in the next clause 
but one, are in apposition to the pre- 
ceding noun, the object of the Apostle 
being so to characterize the e?s Oeds as 
to make the conception of any real 
plurality of Gods appear to be still more 
inadmissible ; comp. Hofmann, Schrz/to. 
Part I. p. 302 sq. é& ob Ta TavTA 
K.T.X.] ‘from whom are all things, and 
we unto Him ;’ God is the causal fount 
and origin of all things (Rom. xi. 36), 
and the blessed end and object, the 
‘causa finalis’ (comp. Col. i. 16) for 
which we (‘credentes,’ Beng.) were called 
into being, the ‘ finis fidelium,‘ as Bengel 
well expresses it; see Dorner, Chr. 
Doctr. Vol. 1. § 28, p. 355 (Transl.). 
On the profound meaning of the é 06 
7a Tavta (Thy Snusoupylay A€éyet, Chrys.), 
by which not merely the existence, but 
the first origin of the r& mdyta is re- 
ferred to the working of the Divine 
Omnipotence, see Van Oosterzee, Chr. 
Dogm. § 56. 2, p. 301 (Transl.). 
8U ot Ta TavTa] ‘through whom are all 
things,’ scil. through whose blessed 
instrumentality all things that are, the 
totality of things (7d mdyta is collec- 


158 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. VIII. 6, 7. 


"Inoots Xpictos, 80 ob ta Tavta Kal hyeis 80 adtod. 7’ AAW 


OvK €v TaoW t yous TwWes bE TH cuVNnOeia Ews Apts TOD cid@dov 


7. ovvnPela Ews &%ptt] So, as to words and order, Lachm. Tisch., Treg. Rev., 
Westc. and Hort ; the first word on preponderating, and the order on greatly 


preponderating, authority: Rec., cvverdjoe Tod ciddAov ews Uptt. 


tive), were created and made: see John 
i. 3, wdvta (all things viewed in their 
severalty) 8” aitod éyévero, Heb. i. 2, 
50 of Kal émolnoe rods aidvas, and comp. 
Col. i. 15, év abt éexticOn Ta mdvTa, —in 
which last passage, though the prepo- 
sition is different, and the reference to 
the Eternal Son rather as the ‘causa 
conditionalis’ (see notes z# Zoc.), the 
dependence of 7a mdvta on Him is 
equally clearly set forth. All limita- 
tions of the second 7a mdvta (7d Tay 
avOpémwy ‘yévos, Chrys., ‘all that needs 
redemption,’ Baur) are wholly inad- 
missible: the words must have the 
same scope and inclusiveness in both 
clauses. kal iets 8.’ adrod] 
‘and we through Him ;’ with reference 
to the new creation in Christ (awh 
xtlows, 2 Cor. v.17, Gal. vi. 15; comp. 
Eph. ii. 10) of which He is equally the 
‘causa medians:’ 8” avtod eis Td efvar 
mapnxOnuer, kad eis Td eb eivat, Theoph. 
As in the first member of the verse 
the eis avréy has an ethical reference, 
so here the 6? airod. It is through 
Christ that we are called, as His new 
creation, into that true being and ex- 
istence which is implied in the fore- 
going eis adrdv. To refer the words to 
the Physical creation, or, loosely and 
vaguely, to the owrnpla which comes 
from Him (Theodoret), mars the exe- 
getical parallelism of the clauses. 
_ Having thus contrasted the God and 
Lord of the Christian with the mean- 
ingless idols of the heathen, the Apostle 
does not pause to draw the obvious 
inference, — that to eat eiSwAdéuTa is in 
itself a matter of indifference. 

7. “ANN odk é& Tacw f yaors] 


See above. 


‘ Howbeit there is not in all men the 
knowledge (in question):’ contrasted 
statement, by means of the stronger 
adversative aAAd, to the position laid 
down in ver. 4; ow yvwoav Kabws Sei 
yvavat (ver. 2). Ty cTvvybela 
K.t.A.] ‘dy their being accustomed until 
now to the idol ;’ the dative expressing 
the ground or subjective cause of the 7d 
éaBiew ws eidwAdbuTov : see Winer, Gr. 
§ 31. 6. ¢c, notes oz Phil. ii. 3, and the 
good collection of examples from clas- 
sical Greek in Kiihner, Gr. § 425. 8. 
In all such instances of the use of the 
dative we trace the defining character 
of the case, and its qualifying relation 
to the whole sentence; see Rumpel, 
Casuslehre, p. 259 sq. In the expres- 
sion ovvyGeiq Tod eidmdou (‘the being 
accustomed to the idol’) the gen. is 
the ordinary genitive of the ‘object’ 
after a substantive expressive of in- 
ternal or external activity: comp. 
Plato, Zheet. p. 168 B, é« ovvnbeias 
bnudtwv tre kai dvoudrwv, and see Winer, 
Gr. § 30. 1.a. The expression is fur- 
ther defined by the loosely added éws 
&pts (comp. Gal. i. 13, Thr euhy avaorpo- 
ony wore, Phil. i. 26, TAs eutjs mapovotas 
mdédw): long habitude prior to con- 
version lasted, even after it (uera 7d 
motedoat, Theoph.), sufficiently to keep 
up the feeling that the offering was made 
to something really existent: see Har- 
less, Chr. Ethics, § 36, p. 319 (Transl.), 
where the meaning of the clause is 
well brought out. The reading 
ouveidnoe is maintained by Reiche, 
Meyer, Heinrici, al., as being the more 
difficult reading, but in the face of evi- 
dence [N! A BP; 17; Memph., al.] 


Cuap. VIII. 7, 8. ¥ CORINTHIANS. 


159 


@s elOwrAdOuToV eabiovew, Kal 7) cuvEeldnots a’TaV acbevns odca 


AV 88 A By: e an > f A 2) fal é »” 7\ 
MOAUVETAL. p@wa O€ nuas ov TapacgTnce TW Oem: ovTe cay 


8. mapacthoe] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on pre- 
ponderating authority: fec., maplotnot The same edd. on similar authority 
omit ydp (Zec.) after ore. In what follows, the reading is very doubtful. 
The reading in the text is supported by Westc. and Hort, and by Treg., Rev. 
(who, however, adopt mepiocevdpue0a); Lachm. interchanges torepovueda and 
mepiscevouev: Rec. and Tisch., édv pdywuev Tepiscetouey, ore cay ph pdywuev 
borepovmeba, with good external authority, but opp. to AB; 17; Memph., Am., 
al., and with the high probability against it of a correction in favor of the 


more usual order. 


which, even if the assertion as to 
ovveé. being the more difficult reading 
were admitted, it would seem highly 
precarious to reverse. It is, however, 
quite as likely that ovvedqoes (derived 
from the latter portion of the verse) 
was a correction of ouvnfele, as vice 
wer sa. kal 4 ovvelSnots K.T.A.] 
‘and their conscience being weak is de- 
filed ;’ scarcely ‘because it is’ (De- 
Wette, Meyer ; ‘cum sit infirma,’ Vulg.), 
which expresses too strongly the simple 
secondary predication. The participle 
is here ‘circumstantial,’ rather than 
‘causal’ (see notes ov 1 Thess. iii. 10), 
and is most exactly expressed by the 
English participle: their conscience 
was weak, and being such became de- 
filed. On the meaning of ovvetdnois, 
see Sanderson, de Od/. Consc. 1. 4 sq. 
Vol. Iv. p. 3 (ed. Jacobs.), and on its 
use in the N.T., Harless, Chr. Eth. § 
45 sqq. (Transl.), and the valuable 
article in Cremer, 276/.- Theol. Worterb. 
p- 233. On the essential nature of the 
conscience (consciousness of a holy, 
invisible authority given by the au- 
thority itself), see especially Marten- 
sen, Chr. Ethics, Vol. I. § 117 sq. p. 
359 (Transl.), and, on its natural su- 
premacy, Butler, Serm. 2, 3. In the 
case of the twes before us, the con- 
science was weak; or, in other words, 
this natural guide (Butler), from not 
having been properly instructed, was a 


hesitating guide: the eféwAdé@uvroy was 
eaten with a vague feeling that the 
efwrev really represented something, 
and the result was a feeling of moral 
defilement : the weak conscience is de- 
filed with the consciousness of guilt; 
see Weiss, 571. Theol. § 93, Vol. 11. 
p- 40 (Transl.), and comp. Delitzsch, 
Psychol. § 1. p. 166 (Transl.). For 
examples of this ethical use of woAvvw 
[connected with peédAas, from a Sanscrit 
root mal, Fick, /ido-Germ. Weorterd. 
p. 151, Curtius, Gr. tym. § 551, p. 332, 
ed. 2], see Sir. xxi. 28, wordver thy éavtod 
puxhv 6 WOupi(wy, Plato, Repudl. vit. 
P- 535 E, ev auadia porddverOar; and 
comp. 2 Cor, vii. 1, woAvepod capkds Kad 
TVCUMATOS. 

8. Bpopa St «.7.d.] ‘But meat (food, 
in its most general sense; comp. Rom. 
xiv.17) w¢ll not present us unto God,’ 
scil. for approval or disapproval ; state- 
ment, introduced by means of the sub- 
explanatory and slightly contrasting 5é 
(Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 362; comp. 
notes vz Gal. ill. 23), of the true view 
that ought to be entertained (‘Let it 
be noted, however, that’), in contra- 
distinction to what might seem to be 
suggested by ver. 7, viz. that it was 
positively right to eat, to show moral 
strength and the recognition of the 
principle of ver. 4; comp. Theodoret 
inloc. The verb mapiornut is designedly 
chosen rather than ovviornus (Rom. v. 


160 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. VIII. 8. 9. 


\ / f , 7 2\ / "g 
pn paywpev, botepovpefa, ovTe eav Paywpev, TEpiacevoper, 


9 / : \ la e > / € Lal v4 f is lal 
Brérrere S€ wn Tas 7 e£ovola buov avTn TpocKompa yEevnTaL Tots 


9. dabevéaow] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg. Rev., Westc. and ort, on vastly 
preponderating authority: Rec., aoG€vovow. 


8, xvi. I, al.), as a more purely neutral 
word: food, the Apostle says, does 
not Zer se ‘bring us before God’ in any 
moral aspect; it places us in no moral 
relation with Him, whether in regard 
of approval or disapproval: ‘usus 
ciborum nihil facit ad pietatem,’ Estius. 
The full force of the statement, and 
the neutral aspect of mapaorjoe is 
brought out in the double-membered 
clause that follows. The future seems 
chosen, rather than the present, as 
marking something which, it is con- 
ceivable, might occur, but which, it is 
here said, will not ever occur: com- 
pare Rom. v. 7, meats yap brép Sikalov 
wis a@mobaveirat, and see Winer, Gr. 
§ 40. 6, Kiihner, Gr. § 387. 2. 

torepotpeda}l ‘do we lack, scil. any- 
thing in regatd of our relation 
to God; éAatrovmeba, Theoph. ‘ inopia 
laboramus,’ Grimm. The verb tovep- 
etc Oat is thus used both with (Rom. iii. 
23) and without (Luke xv. 14, 2 Cor. 
xi. 8, Heb. xi. 37, and Phil. iv. 12, 
where it is similarly in opposition to 
mepiooeverv) a case following it. It is 
found with a prepositional member, 
above, ch. i. 7. Whether it be middle 
or passive, may be considered doubt- 
ful,—such cases being commonly de- 
cided by the context (see Winer, G7. 
§ 39. 3. 3), and there being here nothing 
to guide us. On the whole, the 
passive seems rather the more prob- 
able ; see ch. i. 7, Heb. xi. 37. 

mepircevopev] ‘do we abound, have we 
overplus, scil. in the way of special 
approval from God; mepirady tt Exouev 
Kal evdoximoduey mapa TH OcG, Theoph. 
The reading mepiocevdueba is supported 
by Band Origen, but, independently of 


the amount of evidence for the active 
form, may have been due to a mechan- 
ical repetition (in transcription) of the 
form which just preceded. On the 
transcriptional errors in B, see Westcott 
and Hort, JZztrod. to N. T. § 312, p. 
233 Sq. 

g. Brémere 88 «.7.d.] ‘take heed, how- 
ever, lest by any means this liberty of 
yours become a stumbling-block to the 
weak:’ caution suggested by the very 
terms of the preceding verse; ‘if it be 
true that this eating or not-eating is a 
matter of complete indifference, yer (5€) 
beware of any harmful use of your 
Christian liberty.’ As Severian (Cram. 
Cat.), rightly observes,—7d wév katop- 
Oovmevoy tiv ovdév: 7d Se BAdrrov Tovs 
dobeveotépous weyu. The tudv, as the 
structure of the verse indicates, is not 
without its force, ‘quam obnixe 
tuemini, ver. 11,’ Bengel. On the 
subject generally of avoidance of 
offence, see Rothe, Chr. Zth. § 1027, 
Vol. Iv. p. 263 sqq. (ed. 2), and on the 
limits of the permissible, Martensen, 
Chr. Eth. Part I. § 1348q., p. 418 sqq. 
(Transl.). mpdoKoppal ‘ stwmbling- 
block,’ ‘offendiculum,’ Vulg.,; scarcely 
distinguishable in its ethical meaning 
from oxdvdadov (comp. Rom. xiv. 13, 
where both words are used), except as 
perhaps implying more definitely an 
obstacle, and something standing in the 
way or placed as such: contrast Matt. 
xviii. 7, Luke xvii. 1, €A@eiv 7a oxdvdada, 
where mpogxéumata could scarcely have 
been,used. Perhaps we may trace this 
same sort of idea in the LXX associa- 
tion of Al@os with mpéckoupa (Rom. ix. 
32, 33, I Pet. ii. 8), and wérpa with 
oxdvdadov (Rom. /. c., 1 Pet. 2. c.). On 








Cnar. VIII. 10-11. 


> / 
asbevécw. 


Y CORINTHIANS. 


161 


10 2X ¢ ! 18 \ \ yy lal b >? / 
€av yap TUS lon TE TOV EYOTA YYHoW Ev ElowdELwW 


KATAKELMEVOY, OVX’ 7) TUVESnTLS avTOD acOevods dvTOS oiKOSomN- 


Ojoetas eis TO Ta eidwdrAdPvTAa éaOiew; MNamorAdAjquTaL yap 6 


oxdvdadoy, see notes oz Gal. v. II. 

10. éuv yao Tis K.T.X.] Confirmation 
(ydp) of what has been just said, and 
the need shown for the forbearing 
caution which the Apostle is advising. 
Tov tXovTa yraow] ‘who hast knowl- 
edge ;’ certainly not, ‘quippe qui 
cognitionem habes,’ Meyer,—a render- 
ing which suggests the absence, not 
the presence, of the article; comp. 
Donalds. Craz. § 305, Gramm. § 490. 
The reading is not perfectly certain. 
The pronoun ¢¢ is omitted by BF G.; 
Vulg., Origen (Lat.), al., and is placed 
in brackets by ZLachm., Westc. and 
ffort, but is apparently genuine, the 
authority for its insertion being good, 
and slightly preponderant. év 
eidwrelw kaTaKkepevov] ‘ sitting at meat 
— in an idol’s temple ;’ not only eating 
eidwAdduta, but so carried away by the 
inconsiderately used liberty, as to eat 
them in the very courts of the eiSwAciov : 
brébete 5é Th wéyebos, Theod. The 
word cidwAetoy (‘ vocabulum aptum ad 
deterrendum,’ Bengel.) is not found in 
ordinary Greek. It occurs, however, 
mm) the LXX, 1 Macc. i. 47, x.-83, 1 
Esdr. ii. 9. This 
eidwAots (to use the words of Chrys.) 
though not here directly forbidden, is 
inferentially so, inthe illustration here 
supplied of one already ac@evqjs being 
made still more so by the unseemly 
and culpable act: comp. Chrys. 77 doc. 
odxl 4 ovveldgois K.T.A.] Swill not 
his conscience be edified ?’—literally 
‘builded up’ (‘dificabitur,’ Vulg.; 
‘timrjada,’ Goth.; sim. Copt., Arm.), 
with an obvious tinge of irony, the 
verb retaining its usual ethical sense, 
but, as the context shows, in an in- 
verted sense, viz. edified to do,—not 

21 


Euplthoxwpety Tots 


that which the conscience approves of ; 
but that about which it is uneasy and 
disquieted. The translation ‘be em- 
boldened,’ Auth., Rev. (‘be confirmed,’ 
Syr., ‘ be induced,’ Ath.), expresses the 
general sense, but misses the delicate 
irony which the word seems chosen to 
convey: it was an oixodouh that was 
really a kaaipeois, an ‘adificatio ad 
ruinam’ (Tertullian, Pr@escr. cap. 8). 
aolevots SvtTos] ‘zzasmuch as he is 
weak ;’ participial clause defining and 
giving point to what follows. It is 
just because the man has a weak con- 
science that his so-called edification is 
really mischievous and ruinous. He 
doubts; he is led on by the reckless 
example (avtl mapaivécews Td mparyua 
5éxeTa, Chrys.) to do what he inwardly 
feels to be doubtful, and his whole 
moral character suffers in consequence. 
It is not from faith and a true recogni- 
tion of the principle of ver. 4 that he 
eats the eiSwAdéuta, but simply from 
the force of an inconsiderate example. 
The participle is here not hypothetical 
(‘if he is weak’), and certainly not 
predicative (‘who is weak’), but causal; 
it accounts for the statement that is 
implied in the words that follow; see 
Donalds. Gr § 615,,616. els TO 
To eiSwrdbuTa éoOicw] ‘ wzto the cating 
of things offered to idols ;’ not simply 
‘to eat, etc.,’ with a mere reference to 
the result,—a meaning doubtful in St. 
Paul’s Epistles (see notes o7 1 Thess. 
ii. 12), but with some tinge of the idea 
of direction, as suggested by the prepo- 
sition: the eating what was offered to 
idols is that to which the olkodoun ulti- 
mately leads: ‘ruunt ad tentandum 
quod sibi licere non putabant,’ Calvin. 
II. GédAvtat yap 6 acbevav] ‘Kor 


162 1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. VIII. 11, 12. 


acbevav év Th of yvoce, 6 aderpos 0 bv Xpiotds améBaver. 


20 Be G s > Nik 59 8 \ / 2 An 
OUT@S O€ ALAPTAVOVTES ELS TOUS a eXous KQL TUTTTOVTES QUTWY 


Il. GadéAAvtat ydp] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on pre 


ponderating authority: Rec., nal dmodetrat. 


év TH of yuooe, 6 aderApds] 


So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating 
authority: Rec., ddeApos em TH of ywodoe. 


(thus) he that is weak perishes :’ con- 
firmatory explanation (ydp, Klotz, 
Devar. Vol. u. p. 240; comp. notes ox 
Gal. ii. 6) of the ‘ zdificatio ruinosa,’ 
(Calvin) implied in the preceding words. 
The amdaea here referred to is the 
bAcOpos aidvios (2 Thess. i. 9) which the 
acting against the dictates of con- 
science, grieving, and _ ultimately 
quenching, the Holy Spirit, brings with 
it in the course of dreadful consequence: 
‘meminerimus ergo nos in exitium 
ruere, quoties adversus conscientiam 
pergimus,’ Calvin. Observe that, in 
the case supposed, the man remains 
éoGevis in his faith (6 as@evav), and so 
continues to sin against his conscience 
as often as he acts under the influence 
of the evilexample. Had the example 
helped him to see the matter in its 
true light, it would have been other- 
wise : comp. Hofmann 77 doc. 

evry oy yvaoe] ‘through thy know!l- 
edge ;’ the év here having its instru- 
mental force: the 7d a&méAAvoOa is re- 
garded as involved in, and existing in 
the recklessly displayed yvaois; see 
Winer, Gr. § 48. 3. d, Kiihner. Gr. § 
431. 3, and notes oz 1 Thess. iv. 18. 
In verse I yv@o1s was spoken of as 
puffing up; its more dreadful action is 
here brought out. It not only involves 
(to use a modern expression) no al- 
truism, but the very reverse: it is 
really pucadeApia (Theod.). C) 
adedhds «.t..] ‘the brother for whom 
Christ died;’ with great rhetorical 
force,— not only a Christian brother, 
but one whom Christ died to save; 
és abtoy amdAAvobat ueTa Thy TwTnpiay 


Thy otrTw yevouévny, Chrys. 72 Joc., by 
whom the force of the verse is well 
brought out. Compare Rom. xiv. 15, 
where the command of the Apostle 
rests upon the same momentous con- 
sideration: wh TG Bpdyari cov éxeivov 
amddAve Step ov Xpictds arébavev. It is 
here 8’ gy (‘cujus causa’); it is there 
with but a faint shade of difference, 
brép ob (‘in commodum cujus’). On 
this last mentioned expression, see 
notes oz Gal. iii. 13, and the excellent 
note of Meyer ez Rom. v. 6. 

12. obtws St k.7.d.] ‘ But thus sinning 
(with emphasis) against the brethren ;’ 
the 3¢, with its sub-explanatory and 
slightly ratiocinative force (see above, 
ver. 8, and notes oz Gal. ii. 4) bringing 
out the true significance of the act 
and its sequel, and the odtws fixing 
attention on the manner specified in the 
preceding verses. Kal ToTTOVTES 
K.t.d.] ‘and (let me add) wounding their 
conscience when it 7s weak ;’ the kat 
introducing an explanation (see notes 
on Phil. iv. 12) of the more general 
Guaptavovres, and the appended ao@e- 
vodoay keeping the attention fixed on 
the fact (ac0evotcay is a tertiary predi- 
cate; see Donalds. Gr. § 489 sq.) that 
the conscience was all the time weak. 
On the subject of a weak conscience, 
and the privileges it may justly claim, 
see South, Serm. XXIX. Vol. I. p. 473 sqq.- 
The strong word tértovtes (TH eupdoer 
Tis Ackews Thy wudrnta évdertduevos, 
Chrys.) designedly marks the amount 
of the moral injury done to the con- 
science. It was weak already; the 
blows given (the participle is in the 


aes 
"4 
Hu 





Cuap. VIII. 12-IX. 1. 


Tv cuveidnow acbevovcar, eis XpioTov dpaptavere. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


163 


18 Scomrep 


ei Bp@wa cKxavdanrifer tov adchpov mov, od un haya Kpéa eis TOV 


aidva, iva wn Tov ddeAdov pov cKxavdaricw. 


Tam verily an apostle, 
and assuredly 30 to you. 


IX. Ovn eipi édevOepos; ovK eiwl aroato- 


IX. 1. od« eiul erctOepos; ovx eiul amdaroados;] So Lachm., Tisch, Treg., 
kev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly preponderating authority: Rec. interchanges 


present tense) make matters worse, 
and help soon to destroy all moral 
sensibility. For examples of this meta- 
phorical sense of timrw, see Steph. 
Thesaur. s. Ve Vol. Vil. p. 2592 (ed. 
Hase and Dindorf). Of those cited 
the most pertinent seems, Alciph. Zf. 
Ill. 57, S:aBoAats turels Ta Sta: comp. 
also 1 Sam. i. 8, Prov. xxvi. 28 (LXX). 
cis Xptorov Guapravere] ‘ye sin against 
— Christ ;’ the emphasis is resting on 
the first words, and marking the true 
nature of what might otherwise have 
seemed but a venial sin. How little is 
it recognized in ordinary Christian 
practice that hurting a weak brother’s 
conscience is really—‘aperta in 
Christum contumelia,’ Calvin. The 
three aspects of the sin are well set 
forth by Chrys. zz doc. 

13. Sudtep] ‘ Wherefore, For which 
very reason ;’ vividly expressed con- 
clusion both in regard of the con- 
junction (only here and ch. x. 14), and 
the petecxnuatiouds cis éauvtdoy in the 
personal form of the statement. In 
the pronominal conjunction d:drep, the 
mép gives force and emphasis to the 
pronominal element (8:6 is simply ‘ on 
which account,’ see notes oz Gail. iv. 
31: didwep is rather ‘on which very 
account’), and so helps to make the 
connection between the cause and the 
action founded on it as logically close 
as possible. On the meaning of zép 
(‘ambitum rei majorem vel quamvis 
maximum,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 
772), see above, notes on ver. 5. 
od pi day «.7.A.] ‘7 will in no wise 


eat flesh forevermore ;’ the tenor of 
the passage suggesting the stronger 
form of translation in the case of the 
two negatives: see notes 071 Thess. 
iv. 15 (Transl.), and on the general use 
of ob uf with subjunctive or future, 
Winer, Gr. § 56. 3, and notes oz Gal. 
iv. 30. In regard of the use of xpéa 
after the foregoing general form of 
Bpayua, the suggestion of Bengel is 
plausible that the plural xpéa points to 
‘totum genus carnium ;’ it seems, how- 
ever, more natural to suppose that it 
refers to the subject-matter, flesh of- 
fered to idols, and that the verse is a 
kind of blending of two sentences, viz. 
(1) ‘if Bpdua cravdari¢er, I will eat no 
Bpeua,’ and (2), without any hypothet- 
ical portion, ‘I will eat no kpéa, va ph 
k.T.A.: see Hofmann zz Joc., who, 
however, does not seem correct in sep- 
arating ver. 13 from what precedes. 

It will be observed that in the repeti- 
tion of the words cxavd. tov 48., the 
order is changed, that the emphasis 
may fall on the right word. On the 
sentiment generally, and on the ques- 
tion of accommodation to the weak, 
see Martensen, Chr. Ethics, Part I. 
§ 135, Pp- 419, Part 11. § 146, p. 342 
(Transl.). 


IX. 1-27. Digressive statement, on 
the part of the Apostle, of his own free- 
dom (1-3), his own rights, whether in 
regard of marriage or maintenance (4— 
18), and his own conduct (19-23), and 
of the duty of his readers to follow his 
example (24-27). 1, Ovw etpl 


164 


1 CORINTHIANS: 


Cuap. IX. 1, 2. 


+ ee a} La} \ 7 € lal | > Fars 
hos; ovxl ‘Incovv tov Kupuov nav éwpaxa; ov To épyov pou 


Lal © > , , 
vpeis ote ev Kupiw; 7 €i dddous ovK eiul amdaTodos, GANA YE 


the position of éAetvOepos and amdcrodos. 


Internal arguments (Reiche, Osiander, 


Hofmann) seem of but little real validity; as good logical reasons can ap- 


parently be shown both for the one order and for the other. 


In what follows, 


the above mentioned edd. read simply "Ingodv, on equally clearly preponderating 


authority: Rec. adds Xpiordv. 


ehedbepos] ‘Am TJ not free?’ scil. inde- 
pendent, not under the constraint of 
others, —a free actor in preaching the 
gospel and acting as may most conduce 
to its progress. That the éAevOepia 
had relation to other men, not to rules 
of conduct, seems proved by ver. 19. 
Of the four questions, the first and 
second bring out, both on general as 
well as official grounds, the Apostle’s 
complete moral independence in re- 
gard of what he says in ch. viii. 13. 
The third question emphasizes and 
substantiates the second; the fourth 
adds the practical proof that, however 
it might be in regard of others, he 
certainly was their Apostle; they were 
Ais work in the Lord. ov 
*Inootv x.7.d.] ‘Have J not seen Jesus 
our Lord?’ even as the other Apostles 
saw Him when He appeared to them 
after His resurrection; comp. ch. xv. 
5 Sq., where, after recounting these 
appearances, the Apostle specifies with 
solemn emphasis, 4$6n kduot (ver. 8). 
This manifestation of the risen, and 
(in the case of St. Paul) ascended, 
Lord which was vouchsafed, not only 
on the way to Damascus (Acts ix. 17), 
but in visions (Acts xviii. 9, xxii. 17) 
and Zerhaps still more wonderful cir- 
cumstances (2 Cor. xii. I sq.), placed 
St. Paul on a level, in regard of this 
important particular, with the very 
Eleven. The deep significance of the 
words of Ananias, 6 @eds ... mpoexeipt- 
oatéce... iSeiv Toy Sikatoy (Acts xxii. 14) 
was never forgotten. The & p67 kauolt 
was to the Apostle the credential of 


his apostolate, and, as such, naturally 
forms a part of passages like the pres- 
ent; comp. Hofmann 77 J/oc., who, 
however, unnecessarily limits the scope 
of the statement. It will be observed 
that this question has the stronger 
form of the negative particle (odxt; 
comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 512. 1) prefixed 
to it, the rest being introduced by the 
ordinary form. od Td epyov K.T.A.] 
‘ Are not ye (Corinthians) my work in 
the Lord?’ the living and practical 
proof of my apostolical relation to you 
and yours; ‘ab effectu probat Aposto- 
latum.’ Calvin. The év Kupfw marks, 
as usual, the blessed sphere in which, 
as it were, the whole had been done, 
and outside of which it could never 
have been done; comp. Cremer, 426/.- 
Theol. Wérterb. p. 385, and notes oz 
L£ph. iv. 17, vi. 1, al. Itis thus to be 
connected with the whole of the fore- 
going words; comp. ch. iv. 15. 

2. eb UAdows K.7.A.] ‘Hf to others Lam 
not an Apostle, yet certainly I am to 
you ;’ ‘if members of other Churches 
do not deem me (comp. Winer, Gr. § 
31. 4. a) to be an Apostle, you at any 
rate cannot so regard me;’ abrupt and 
earnest expansion of the thought called 
out by the foregoing words. In the 
GAAd ‘ye, the GAAd, in itself definitely 
antithetic, especially after the preceding 
hypothesis (comp. ch. iv. 15 and notes 
zz loc.), is strengthened by the added 
vé (‘acuit et intendit’), and a sharper 
antithesis is thus brought out between 
the protasis and apodosis; ‘however 
it may be with others, yet, at any rate’ 





Cuap. IX. 2-4. 


rCORINTHIANS. 


165 


bpiv eiut> 9) yap ofpayis pou THs amoatoNns tyels éote ép 
Kupio. 8H éus arodoyia, Tois eué avaxpivovaely éotw atrn. 


2. pov THs amoctoAns] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on 
preponderating ancient authority: /ec., Tijs euijs amooroAjs. 

3. éotly airy] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly 
preponderating authority: Rec., arn éori. 


(‘at certe,’ Beza), ‘I am an apostle to 
you.’ On the use of the yé, both in 
regard of ‘quod minimum’ as well as 
‘quod maximum,’ see Hermann, Viger, 
No. 296. 6, and comp. notes on ch. iv. 
8, vi. 13. In classical Greek words are 
usually (always, — according to Stall- 
baum on Plato, ep. p. 331 B) inter- 
calated between the two particles ; see 
examples in Kiihner, Gr. § 511. 9. 4, 
Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 15. On the 
ei ov in cases like the present, where 
the emphasis rests on the negative, 
see Winer, Gr. § 55. 2. 2, and comp. 
notes on ch. vii. 9. h yep 
oppayis k.T.A. ] ‘for ye are the seal of 
my apostleship in the Lord;’ the év 
Kupl@, as in ver. 1, belonging to the 
whole clause, and marking the holy 
sphere in which the Corinthians were 
the oppayis specified. In oparyis there 
appears to lie the idea of something 
that outwardly authenticates ; the Co- 
rinthian Church was the external and 
visible token of the Apostle’s mis- 
sionary labor: comp. Rom. iv. I1, 
where the onueciov mepitomijs is described 
as a odparyis Sixaoctvns. On the use 
of oppayis in ecclesiastical writers to 
denote Christian baptism, see Suicer, 
Thesaur. Vol. I. p. 1198. 

3. ‘He ep amodoyla] ‘my defence ;’ 
emphatic summary of the foregoing, 
connecting particles being studiously 
omitted ; ape? wor Td buérepor epyov eis 
paptupiay Trav révwy, Theodoret. Westc. 
and fort. with Chrys., Ambr., al., con- 
nect the verse with what follows, and 
make the slight break at the end of 
ver. 2. This, however, mars the ap- 


parently distinct connection between 
ver. 2 and ver. 3 (observe the pou — 
€u) — éuh) and makes the questions 
which follow, not in sequence to the 
abrupt questions in ver. 1, but de- 
pendent on ver. 3,— of the tenor of 
which, however, they form by nu means 
pertinent illustrations. Tots Epe 
avaxplvovew] ‘fo them that do examine 
me,’ scil. rots (nrovow wabeiy md0ev SRAov 
bre dméorroAds eiut, Theoph., ‘qui am- 
bigunt de apostolatu meo, Bengel; the 
word avaxpivew being studiously chosen 
as a kind of ‘vocabulum forense’ 
(Beza) to mark the assumptive tone 
of the Apostle’s opponents ; comp. ch. 
iv. 3, 4, and for distinct examples of 
the forensic sense, Luke xxiii. 14, Acts 
NG Oy ooh Moy o.qibh MIty Sah. GS, Searle 
18. éotly atty] ‘2s this’ that I 
have specified, viz. that you Corinthians 
are the visible tokens of my apostle- 
ship: ef Tis Tovs ewovs dvakpivar BovrAeTat 
mévous buds eis waptupiay KadA@, Theod. 
It is perhaps slightly doubtful whether 
airy is the subject or the predicate. 
The order of the words (contrast John 
i. 19, Xvii. 3) seems slightly in favor of 
the latter; so apparently Vulg., Syr., 
Copt., al., but it is proper to observe 
that the view taken may have been 
associated with the belief that the 
pronoun referred to what follows. 
Whether, however, it be subject or 
predicate, the sense is obviously the 
same; what the Apostle had stated 
He now proceeds to 
fresh and independent questions. 

4. pi) obk EXopev K.7.A.] ‘ Have we no 
right to eat and to drink?’ So rightly 


was his azroAoyia. 


166 


Have I not an apostle’s 
rights, whether in re- 
ed of marriage or of 

eing maintained, if L 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Crap. IX. 4, 5. 


4 Mn ovx Exopev efovctay hayeiv Kal treetp ; 


5 un ovx éxouwev eEovoiay aderAdny yuvaixa 


had needed it, by those to whom I minister. 


Rev.; the od in cases of this nature 
belonging to the verb, and the uf alone 
expressing the interrogation, — ‘ we are 
surely not without the right to eat and 
to drink, are we?’ comp. Rom. x. 18, 
1 Cor. xi. 22. See Winer, Gr. § 57. 3.4, 
and Kiihner, Gr. § 587. 11, where some 
examples are given, illustrating clearly 
the principle above specified, viz. that 
the ov does not coalesce with the uf, 
but belongs to the verb or to some 
emphatic word in the sentence. The 
plural may refer to Barnabas (comp. 
ver. 6), but, from the general tenor of 
the passage, seems more probably the 
“classific’ (‘i and such as 1”; ‘icol- 
legas includens,’ Bengel) or non-per- 
sonal plural: the question, however, is 
contextual rather than grammatical: 
comp. Winer, Gr. § 58. 4. 2. 

gayetv kal metv] ‘20 cat and to drink.’ 
viz. what may have been provided by 
those to whom the message was 
brought: comp. Luke x. 7, éa@iovtes 
Of this 
right the Apostle did not avail himself 
(2 Cor. xi. 9), but nevertheless the 
etovcia remained. To refer the words 
to the subject-matter of the last chap- 
ter is clearly out of place. For the time 
that question is completely dropped. 
The infinitives belong to the general 
class of the ‘explanatory ’ infinitive, 
see notes on Col. iv. 6, I Thess. ii. 2), 
but, from the simple character of the 
sentence, almost seem to assume the 
form of a word in grammatical regi- 
men: see examples in Winer, Gr. § 
44. I, Kiihner, Gr. § 472.1. c. 

5. pa ov« eXopev «.t.A.] § Have we 
no vight to take about a Christian sister 
as a wife?’ scil. on our missionary 
journeys (‘secum ducere quoquo quis 
eat,’ Grot.) ; and with an implied claim, 


, > > a 
kal mivovTes TH Tap avTa@r. 


as husband and wife were one, to be 
supported by the Churches (Bengel). 
The translation ‘a Christian woman’ 
(Est., Wordsw., comp. Vulg.) is gram- 
matically doubtful (yuvatka being in 
explanatory apposition to the preceding 
substantive), and the reference of the 
werds to ‘mulieres ministrantes,’ such 
as those who accompanied our blessed 
Lord (Luke viii. 2, 3; see the passages 
in Suicer, Zhesaur. Vol. I. p. 810), exe- 
getically improbable. The subsequent 
mention of St. Peter seems here to 
restrict the meaning of yuvf as above 
specified. So distinctly AZth., though 
in the form of a very loose para- 
phrase. ds kal ot Aourol amrdo- 
Todor] ‘as also the rest of the Apostles ;’ 
scil. as was the case with them in the 
last-mentioned, and foregoing, particu- 
lars; the @s probably including a ref- 
erence to ver. 4 as well as to the clause 
immediately preceding (comp. Bengel). 
Though it thus does not follow from 
the words that all the Apostles were 
married, it certainly may be inferred 
from the juxtaposition of clauses that 
the majority were so. Kal ot 
aS5cApol tod Kuplov] ‘ and the brethren 
of the Lord.” ‘Crescit oratio: nam 
primum Apostolos nominat, deinde 
fratres, id est cognatos Domini, pos- 
tremo Cepham ipsum, principem Apos- 
tolici coetus,’ Grot. On the aero 
Tov Kuptov (Acts i. 14, Gal. i. 19), see 
notes oz Gal. /.c. The conclusions 
there arrived at do not seem to be 
shaken by any criticism that has since 
appeared. Both in Gal. /.c. and here 
St. Paul appears to be using améorodos 
in its proper sense, and both here and 
(very clearly) there, to imply that the 
adeAgpol belonged to that company. 
The subject is confessedly one of great 





Cuap. IX. 5-7. 


meORTN TIAN S. 167 


’ e")3 fal 
Tepubyew, @s Kal of AoUTFOL amdaTAAOL Kat oi adedoi Tod Kupiov 


kat Kndas ; °%) wovos éya kai BapvdBas ovx éyowev é€ovolav un 
3 , r , 2O/ ? t , / / 
epyater Oar ; ITs otparevetas idious oyrwvious Tote ; Tis puTEver 


6. ekouclay ph épyd(ecOa] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, 
on very greatly preponderating authority: Mec. inserts tod before wh épyd- 


Ceo Bat. 


difficulty, and one on which different 
minds will, to the very end of time, come 
to different conclusions: it may, how- 
ver, with all fairness be said, that Bp. 
Lightfoot’s criticism (02 Ga/. Dissert. 
1.) of the theory of Jerome, while 
showing Jerome’s ignorance of the two 
particulars which materially strengthen 
his theory, does not successfully dis- 
prove them. kal Knoas] 
Comp. Matt. viii. 14. The fact of the 
Apostle’s marriage is commented on 
in Clem.-Alex. Strom. VII. p. 736, Euseb. 
FHiist. 111. 30; see also Grabe, Spiczd. 
Patr. I, p- 330: 

6. 4) pdovos éy k.7.d.] ‘Or L only and 
Barnabas, have we not the right of for- 
The #, as in 
ch. vi. 2, 9, al., puts the case on the 
other side,—‘ Or is it so that we have 
not the right to do otherwise than 
work?’ Why St. Barnabas is here 
specially mentioned is somewhat doubt- 
ful. The conjecture of Hofmann is not 
improbable,—that, on their first 
missionary journey (Acts xiii. 3), the 
two holy men might have agreed 
together to maintain themselves, and 
not to be chargeable on any local 
Church; and that the remembrance of 
this called up in the mind of St. Paul 
the name of the fellow-laborer with 
whom he was then associated: comp. 
Chrys. dv de Kowwvodvta aiT@ Tis 
&kpiBelas taitns, ob amréxpupev. The 
answer of Wordsworth, that the name 
of St. Barnabas was mentioned because 
St. Paul and St. Barnabas were 
specially Apostles to the heathen (Gal. 
ii. 9), is certainly not sufficient. 


, -, Old Ad ’ ’ 
bearing from working ? 


ph épyater Bar] ‘z0¢t to work, to forbear 
working ;’ apyodytes Cav, kal rpéperOau 
mapa Tov pantevoapevwy, Chrys. The 
word épyd(eoGar, as Meyer remarks, is 
the regular word for the manual labor 
here alluded to: comp. Matt. xxi. 28, 
and especially Acts xviii. 3, where the 
word is used in reference to the working 
of the Apostle with Aquila and Priscilla 
at their common trade of tent-making. 
For the uses of épyd(eoOa in the N. T., 
see Cremer, Worterb. p. 259 sq. 

7. tls oTpateverat K.T.A.] ‘ Who ever 
serueth as a soldier at his own charges ? 
who planteth a vineyard and eateth not 
of the fruit thereof? or who tendeth a 
flock and eateth not of the milk of the 
flock?’ Three appropriate examples, 
viz. of the soldier (2 Cor. x. 3 sq.), the 
vineyard-planter (comp. Matt. xx. 1), 
and the shepherd (comp. John x. 12), 
by which the Apostle vindicates the 
principle already alluded to, and dis- 
tinctly enunciated in ver. 14, viz. Tots 
7d evayyeAloy KaTayyéAAovTas ék TOU 
evayyseAiou Gv. The word épdénor is a 
word of later Greek (LXX, Polyb., 
Dionys.-Hal.; comp. Sturz, de Dial. 
Mac.p. 187) commonly denoting (a) the 
rations supplied to the soldier (7 
a&pwpicuevn Tpoph, Suidas), and thence, 
more generally (4) his pay; comp. 
Polyb. Ast. VI, 3, 12, dpeéviov & of weCol 
AauBdvover Tis huepas dbo dBodovs. It 
is used three times elsewhere in the 
N. T., viz. Luke iii. 14, in the same 
sense as here, and in a similar but 
somewhat wider sense, Rom. vi. 23, 
and 2 Cor. xi.8. The dative is a sub- 
instrumental dative; the épémea are re- 


168 1 CORINTHIANS. 


[Cuap. IX. 7-9 


auTeA@va Kal Tov Kaptrov avTov ovK éoOlea; H Tis Trommawe 
/ » ee | fa] / a / > > ath 8 \ \ 
TOLLUNY Kal EK TOD YyaNaKTOS THS Troi“uns ovK EcOier ; Mn Kata 


” 0 rn fal KA Ae: A n > / 9 b] \ 
av@pwirrov TavTa AAAW ; 7) KAL O VOMOS TAUTA ov eyel ; ” EV Yap 





T® Mavoéws vow yeypatrrar Ov Kk pooces Body addowvra 
t bg 7 YP. i d 


) 


7. tov kapwov] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on greatly 
preponderating authority: /ec., é Tov Kapmod. 

8. 4 Kad 6 véuos TadTa ov] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, 
on greatly preponderating authority: Rec., 4 obx! Kal 6 vduos TadTa, 


9. knudoe:s] So Zisch., Treg. |Westc. 


preponderating authority: Rec., Lachm., 


garded as the means whereby the 7d 
orpareverba was carried on; see Wi- 
ner, Gr. 31. 7. d. In the concluding 
member of the verse the slight change 
in the construction from the object 
accus. (after éo@iewv) to the partitive é 
Tod ydAaxtos has probably no studied 
significance; the kaprés suggests in 
itself a kind of partitive idea, which 
becomes expressed when the more 
concrete term (ydAa) appears in the 
clause that follows. 

8. Mi xatdé dvOpwrov k.7.d.] ‘Am J 
speaking these things after the manner 
of men?’ Transition, by means of a 
forcible introductory question (kat’ 
€parnaw mpodye: Toy Adyou dmep em) TaY 
opdipa wmoroynuevwy yivetot, Chrys.), to 
scriptural evidence for the principle 
already laid down; the uf, as usual, ex- 
pecting a negative answer; see Winer, 
Gr. § 57. 3. & On the meaning of 
kata &vOpwrov (‘as man,’ Syr., ‘bi 
mannan,’ Goth.: é& av@pwrivey pdvov 
Tapaderyudtwy, Chrys.), see Fritz. oz 
Rom. iii. 5, and notes on Gal. iii. 15. 
The formula occurs six times in St. 
Paul’s Epistle,— ch. iii. 3, xv. 32, Rom. 
iii. 5, Gal. i. 11, iii. 15, and in all cases 
with substantially the same meaning. 

4 Kal 6 vopos k.7.A.] 6 07 saith not also the 
law these things?’ The %, as in ver. 6, 
introducing the other conceivable view 
(viz. that it was on far higher authority), 
and the od coalescing with the verb 


and /Y/ort, margin], and on apparently 
Rev., Westc. and Hort, pydoeas. The 


(comp. Winer, Gr. § 57. 3. @.), and 
suggesting the affirmative answer: ‘ Is 
it I, as a mere man (‘sola humana 
auctoritate,’ Grot.), that say these 
things, or saith not the law also (a 
far higher authority) these things as 
well?’ ‘non modo non secundum 
hominem, sed ipsa lege approbante id 
dico,’ Bengel. The assumed general 
distinction between Aad@ (reference to 
the outward expression) and Aéyw 
(reference to the substance and pur- 
port) is here apparently preserved ; the 
Apostle says that this was no mere 
human utterance, but was the sub- 
stance of the teaching of the law: see 
Rom. iii. 19, where the same distinction 
may be traced, and compare John viii. 
43, but observe that this certainly can- 
not everywhere be pressed in the N. T. ; 
comp. notes oz Col. iv. 3. 

g. év yap TO Mavoéws «.t.d..] ‘ Hor ix 
the law of Moses it ts written :’ scrip- 
tural confirmation (not ‘why surely,’ 
Evans,— a needless departure from the 
ordinary meaning of the particle) by an 
actual quotation of the affirmative 
answer implied in the question im- 
mediately preceding. This quotation, 
it will be observed, is specified as 
coming, not simply, ‘from the law,’ 
but, with designed emphasis, ‘from the 
law — of Moses ;’ see Deut. xxv. 4. 
ov Knpadces Body ddowvTa] ‘thou shalt 
not muzzle an ox while he treadeth out 


CuapP. IX. 9, 10. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


169 


tov Boay meres TO Oc@; 17) Ov’ tyuds TavTws Aeyer; Su’ Huds 


argument derived from the less usual word, and the likelihood of confor- 


mation to the LXX seem to turn the scale. 


The Apostle, quoting from 


memory, uses a word of similar meaning to that of the LXX, but of a form 


less familiar to transcribers. 


the corn ;’ imperatival future, on the 
uses of which see notes oz Gal. v. 14. 
The command (for the details of 
which, see notes oz I Zim. v. 18) was 
designed to inculcate principles of 
mercy and consideration for the ani- 
mals that helped man in his Jabors: 
they were to enjoy, to a certain extent, 
the fruit of their toil. Philo (de Hu- 
manitate, Vol. Il. p. 400, ed. Mang.) 
speaks of this as an #peuov kad pnrhy 
(xpnothy?) mpdoraév towards oxen as 
partners of man’s labors, and as illus- 
trating the benevolence of the Mosaic 
law. The form rnudw is found in 
Xenoph. de Re Lguestri, v. 3, in ref- 
erence to horses, and is apparently 
not distinguishable in meaning from 
gyidw. The substantive kynuds (con- 
nected with xdBos, Schol. Aristoph. 
£qg. 1147, and perhaps derived from 
xdw) is described by Hesych. as a 
TAeKToOV Gryyetov ev @ AauBdvovor Tas 
topotipas [purple-fish], and also as what 
we should term a ‘ nose-bag’ for horses, 
etc.: its more usual meaning, however, 
is ‘a muzzle’ (7d Tots trots emit iOeuevor, 
Suid.; so too Hesych., efdos xadwod ; 
comp. Ps. xxxi. 9) or means to prevent 
animals biting or eating: see Steph. 
Thesaur. s.v. Vol. Iv. p. 1516 sq. (ed. 
Hase and Dind.). — pa trav Bowv péder 
To Oco it for the oxen that God 
careth ?’ scil. in the enactment of this 
law; brief demonstration of the pro- 
priety of the application of the passage 
to the present subject-matter, by a 
short elucidation of its real purport: 
the uh, as above, and as usual, ex- 
pecting a zegative answer. This clause 
is frequently explained away, but con- 
22 


trary to the plain meaning of the 
words and the true drift of the pas- 
sage. The appearance of this com- 
mand in the law of Moses was not 
primarily for oxen, but for the moral 
good of man. God indeed does care 
for oxen, as for all the creatures of 
His hand (Matt. vi. 26, x. 29, Luke xii. 
24), ovX oUTw 5é, ws kal vduov Ocivar brep 
tovTwy, Chrys.: comp. Theoph. and 
Hofmann 27 Zoc. The question before 
the Apostle is, In whose interest was 
this law enacted? and the answer 
plainly is, odx tmip trav dAdywr, GAr’ 
bmép Tay vody Kal Adyov éxdvtwv (Philo, 
cited by Wetst. zz doc.) It is the 
higher and spiritual significance of the 
precept which the Apostle is here con- 
templating : ‘specimen tractandi leges 
Mosaicas, circa animantia latas,’ Beng. 

10. # 8 jas mdvrws A€ya] ‘ Or 
doth He say it, as He clearly doth, for 
our sakes?’ the % introducing another 
and alternative view, the first having 
been inferentially negatived. There 
is some doubt whether the jas is to 
be referred to those for whom the law 
was enacted (Hofmann), or those who 
are now specially under consideration, 
— Christian teachers, ro’s thy kawhv 
diabnknv wapeAnpdras, Origen (Cramer, 
Cat.). The latter seems most probable, 
as in better harmony with the clearly 
implied spiritual application of the 
passage, and the use of the pronoun 
in ver. 11, 12. The mdvrws (‘utique, 
Vulg., ‘notum est,’ Syr.; comp. Luke 
iv. 23, Acts xviii. 21, xxii. 2, xxviii. 4) 
adds force and emphasis to the second 
alternative, Gre pavepdy dv Kad aibTdsOev 
d7jAov, Chrys.; there could be no doubt 


170 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


CuHap. IX. 10, 11. 


yap eypadn, dt. ddeires em’ Edmidt 6 apoTpi@y dpoTpLay, Kal o 


adowy ém’ édmid. TOD peTéexew. 


11 ya tal \ Me \ \ 
Et jpeis viv ta mvevpatina 


10. dpetAe: em’ €Atid1k] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on 


very clearly preponderating authority: Mec., ém éAmld: dpetarct. 


én éAr(dt 


Tov meréxev] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev. Westc. and Hort, on very clearly 
preponderating authority: Aec., THs éAmidos abrov werexetv em edmidn. 


that this was the true spiritual refer- 
ence. On the impersonal Aéye,— 
which, in passages like the present, 
where the scope and purport of a com- 
mand is under consideration, seems 
most naturally referred to God, the 
author of the law,—see notes oz Gal. 
iii. 16. Sv fas yip éypddy] 
jor it was for our sakes that it was 
written ;’ the 6? nuads ydp being used, 
not in its explanatory sense (see notes 
on Gal, ii. 6), but, as in ver. 9, in its 
usual confirmatory sense: o« oty 3Y 
juas ... elpnrat tedra, Origen (Cramer, 
Cat.). The second alternative, by the 
very structure of the passage, was 
clearly to be regarded as the true view: 
this the Apostle confirms by alluding 
to the purpose that was involved. ‘The 
whole passage is well brought out by 
Theodoret 77 Zoc.: ov TotTo Aéyet STi THY 
Boay ob wédAec TS OcG. Mera yap aie, 
GAAG 5.’ Huds mere OC juas yap Kaxel- 
bre Selrer k.7.A.] 
‘to wit that (with the meaning that) 
the plougher ought in hope to plough; 
the ér: marking the true meaning and 
spiritual significance of the command, 
and having its explanatory, rather than 
its causal (‘because,’ ‘quoniam,’ Calvin), 
or mere relatival force (‘ that,’ intro- 
ducing the substance of the éypdpn) ; 
purport of the command (ver. 9), rather 
than the reason of its being given, 
being more in harmony with the didac- 
tic tone of the context. On this ex- 
planatory force of 8r1, see the excellent 
remarks of Schmalfeld, Syzz. § 168 sq. ; 
the copious list of examples in Kriiger, 
Gr. § 550. 3, and comp. notes on ch. 


vous ednutovpynoe. 


iv.9. Few particles in the N.T. give 
greater difficulty to the interpreter in 
settling the exact shade of meaning 
than 67: (comp. notes oz 2 Thess. i. 3), 
this being perhaps due to its relatival 
origin, and the consequently wide na- 
ture of the possible reference: Kriiger, 
Sprachl. § 65. 1. 3- The én’ éAml8e 
is emphatic; it was that on which the 
épetAee was based: comp. Rom. viii. 
21, Tit. i. 2, and notes zz loc. The 
subject of the hope was obviously, as 
the next clause shows, participation in 
the results of the labor. cs) 
GpoTpiav ... 6 ddowy] ‘the sower... 
the thresher, Ut has been doubted 
whether these words are to be taken in 
their simple, or in their metaphorical, 
sense; i.e. whether the Apostle is 
simply stating, in continuation, the 
practical purpose of the command re- 
ferred to (comp. Hofmann), or is re- 
verting to that which the quotation is 
intended to illustrate. It can hardly be 
doubted that the 6? judas eypddn (con- 
sider also ver, 10) carries us over into 
the metaphorical, and that ‘ the sower’ 
and ‘ the thresher’ point to the Chris- 
tian teacher, viewed as either in the 
earlier or later stages of his spiritual 
husbandry. So Chrys., todréctw, 6 
diddoKadros dpelrAet Tov Tévev Tas a&morBas 
Comp. also Origen 77 doc. (Cra- 
mer, Cazez.), who illustrates the mean- 
ing by allusion to the work of the 
Apostle himself; aporpié MladAos 6 ye- 
wmpyos K.T.A. 

11. Hi qpets «.7.A.] 6 Zf we sowed for 
you (dat. commod?) spiritual things:’ di- 
rect application of the foregoing verse 


exeuv. 





CHAP. IX. 11, 12. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


p af! 


eorrelpapey, meya eb welts Dua@v TA capKiKa Depicomev ; ef adrov 


THs twav eEovaias peTéyovaw, ov paddov Tels ; ar’ ovK exypn- 


12. tuay efouvgias] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very 


greatly preponderating authority: Rec., efovolas budv. 


Twa éyKoTny] 


So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly preponderating 


authority: Rec., eyxomhy Twa. 


(without any connecting particles) to 
the Apostle’s own case (comp. ‘mets 
ver. 4), and in continuation of his 
(verun3)- 
which the Apostle sowed were the 
germinal principles (e. ¢. miorw, GEcum.) 
of Gospel teaching, emanating from 
the Holy Spirit (comp. A&th.), and 
communicated in words which He 
vouchsafed to inspire (ch. ii. 13). 

péya el tpets K.7.A.] ‘25 2¢ @ great matter 
if we shall reap your carnal things ?’ 
is it something to be regarded as un- 
reasonable ? comp. 2 Cor. xi. 15; évraiéa 


aroAoyia The mvevyarind 


7d Bixatov deixvvat Tod mpdyuatos, Theoph. 
In the future @epicouey the case is 
regarded as future and possibly im- 
pending: if @epicwuey be adopted (with 
good [CDFG, al.], but inferior, author- 
ity) then the case is put more as 
depending on the event (‘respectum 
comprehendit experientiz,’ Hermann 
de Part. &v, 11.7), ‘if we should, in the 
sequel, so act,— a thing quite possible :’ 
see Winer, Gyr. § 41. e. c, Stallbaum on 
Plato, Lege. p. 958 D (who has carefully 
analyzed the exact shade of meaning 
conveyed by this particle with the 
subj.), and the examples in Klotz, 
Devar. Vol. ul. p. 500 sq. The capeind, 
it need scarcely be said, include the 
tpopyy (Cicum.), and general minis- 
trations to bodily needs. The studied 
juxtaposition of the personal pronouns 
in each clause gives force and sharp- 
ness, but cannot be expressed in trans- 
lation. 

12. eb dddor k.7.A.] § Hf others partake 
of this right over you:’ justification of 
the claim by the example of others. 


The tuev, though by its position 
seeming to be a gen. szdjecté (comp. 
Vulg., Copt., Arm.), must, from the 
whole tenor of the context (comp. ver. 
4), as well as from the peculiar charac- 
ter of the governing noun (comp. 
Winer, Gr. § 30. 1. a), be a gen. objectz, 
‘the right exercised over you,’ Syr., 
Clarom., al. (kpatotow study, ekovord- 
Covow, Chrys., Theoph.; comp. Theod.): 
comp. Matt. x. 1, éfovclay mvevudtwv 
axabdptwy, dare exBddAdew avtd: John 
The 
meaning ‘eminentia seu abundantia’ 
(sc. ofzm), referred to, but not adopted 
by, Wolf zz Zoc., though lexically ten- 
able, is contrary to the whole usage of 
the word in the N.T., and is in no way 
required by the context. GAN’ odk 
expjodpcOa k.t.A.] ‘ zevertheless we used 
not this right;’ the addd@ with its full 
qualifying and contrasting force (‘aliud 
jam hoc esse, de quo sumus dicturi,’ 
Klotz Devar. Vol. 11. p. 2) marking the 
different course which the Apostle had 
adopted in the past from what he might 
have adopted if he had thought proper. 
When placed, as here, at the begin- 
ning of a sentence or clause (no nega- 
tive having preceded), the particle 
includes all shades of contrast from 
simple qualification of what has pre- 
ceded to complete correction (Gal. iv. 
17) (of it; see Kaihner, (G7. § ‘53henas 
In the next clause the aAadd is in its 
usual antithesis to a preceding nega- 
tive. It thus seems better to placea 
comma after tattn than the usual 
colon. TdavTa oréyouev] ‘bear 
all things ;’ ‘sustinemus,’ Vulg.; ‘suf- 


xvii. 2, éfovolay mdons ocapkds. 


172 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. IX. 12, 13. 


cdpela tH éovola taity, Gd\Aa TaVTA oTéyomev, a pH TWA 


> \ Lal a > / fa le) 
eyKoTTY SAmEev TH evayyerim Tov Xpiorov. 


Wop oldate OTL 


M es Ae: f > aie ri) 2) / € a 
Ol TA lepa epyalouevor TA EK TOD lepod éaOHlove.y, of TO Ovat- 


13. Ta x TOU iepod] So TZisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on preponder- 


ating authority: Zachm. and Rec. omit rd. 


mapedpevovtes] So Lachm., 


Tisch.. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly preponderating authority: 


Rec., mpooedpevorres. 


ferimus, Clarom.; and so Syr., Copt. 
(‘longanimes sumus in’), Aith., al. 
The verb oréyew only occurs four times 
in the N.T., viz. ch. xiii. 7, 1 Thess. iii. 
I, 5, and this present passage. In all 
it has the later and derivative meaning 
of dmouevew, Baotd¢ew (Hesych.), and 
marks the patient and enduring spirit 
(comp. Copt.) with which the Apostle 
put up with all the consequences natu- 
rally resulting from the ove éxpnodueda 
K.7.A.: Aydy aivirrerat Kad oTevoxwpiay 
ToAAHY Kal Ta &AAa wdvta, Chrys. The 
transition in meaning from fegere to 
continere (Eurip. Zlecty, 1124), and 
thence to the later meaning sustinere, 
is easy and natural; comp. Polyb. fst. 
III. 53. 2, oTeyew Thy émipopdy Tay Bap- 
Bdpwv, Xvitl. 8. 4, oréyew thy Tis 
parayyos €podov: see Wetstein zz Zoc., 
and notes oz 1 T%ess. iii. 1. On the 
derivation (Sanscrit, sthag; comp. Latin, 
tegere), see Curtius Gr. Ztym. No. 55, 
p- 170 (ed. 2), Fick, Worterd. p. 209. 
ta ph Twa éykorijy K.t.d.] ‘that we 
may not cause any hinderance to the 
Gospel of Christ;’ scil. by incurring 
the suspicion in any form (odx a&mdws 
éykomhy, GAN eykomhy twa, Chrys.) of 
self-seeking, or of preaching and teach- 
ing with an eye to remuneration: ‘ ex- 
peditiores plus operis faciunt et minus 
sumptum afferunt,’ Bengel. Ignatius, 
somewhat similarly, thanked God that 
no one could say, Sri éBdpnod tia év 
pukp@ 2 év peydrw, Philad. cap. 6. 

The word éyxom) (éveSpov, éumddiov He- 
sych.) is only used in this place in the 
N.T., but is found in Galen, and in 


later writers. Properly it denotes ‘zz- 
cisionem, et eam quidem quz fit in 
via,’ Grimm; and this may be either 
in the way of aid (as in the quotation 
in Suidas, xwpis éyxora@v ka KAimaKThpwv 
ovK Hv em Piva: Tis TéTpas), or, as com- 
monly, in the way of hinderance; ava- 
Bodh eurotjoa, Chrys. 

13. ovK otSare] ‘Know ye not?’ 
Proof of the Apostle’s general prin- 
ciple by an appeal to the rule of the 
old covenant, and (ver. 14) to the 
sanction that rule received in the simi- 
lar Siudtayua of our Lord. The ov« 
ofdare gives a kind of reiterative em- 
phasis to what the Apostle has already 
said, and brings personally home to 
the Corinthians their unfairness, ‘ quod 
patiebantur Christi ministris obtrectari 
in re tam licita,’ Calvin zz /oc. 
oi Ta tepa épyatspevor] ‘ Those that are 
engaged about sacred things ;’ with full 
inclusiveness, Levites as well as priests, 
but without any particular classifica- 
tion (contrast Chrys., Theoph., who 
refer this clause to the Levites and the 
following to the priests), as the broad 
fact that all who ministered in ves 
sacre (scarcely ‘in sacrario operantur,’ 
Vulg.; so to Syr., Copt.) had their 
share in the gifts and offerings, is all 
that the Apostle is here pressing. 
Work in what belonged to God re- 
ceived its appropriate wages: and so 
too work in regard of that which fur- 
thered man’s access to God: see Hof- 
mann zz Joc. Ta €k TOD icpod 
érOlovory] ‘cat of the things that come 
out of the temple ;’ with obviously ex- 


Cuap. IX. 13-15. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


173 


a U I F © 
aatnpio mapedpevovTes TH OvovacTypio cuppepiCovtar; \ odTws 


kal 6 Kipuos diétatev trois 70 evayyéehov Katayyéhdovew ex TOD 


evayyeriou Civ. 


1b b] \ \ > / 1) ‘\ , 
eyo bé Ov KEV PNMAL QUOEVL TOUTWV. 


Ov« 


15. ov Kéxpnua ovderl] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, 
on very greatly preponderating authority: 2ec., oddev éxpnodunv. In the con- 
cluding clause, ovdels Kevdoe (Kec. va tts kevdon) is adopted in all the above 
mentioned edd. on less decided, but still clearly preponderating authority. 


clusive reference to the Jewish ritual. 
The definiteness of the expression, in- 
dependently of other considerations, is 
enough to show that the Apostle was 
not thinking of heathen practice. On 
the details of the é« Tod iepod ecdetev, 
see Num. xviii. 8, sqq. ot TH Ouct- 
acrypiv mapeSpevovres] ‘they who wait 
upon the altar, or serve at the altar ;’ 
‘qui altari adstant [‘assident’],’ Calvin ; 
second clause, defining more exactly 
the general expression that had pre- 
ceded. The distinction between this 
verb and mpocedpevew (Rec.) appears to 
be very slight. Both are used in good 
writers, and both convey the idea of 
close attendance on anything ; comp. 
Athen. vil. p. 283 C, of rats Kneis 
mapedpevoytes, and still more appositely, 
Protev. Jac. p. 264, wapedpedbw TH vag 
(cited by Hase in Steph. 7hesaur.s.v.). 
The more general term mpocéxew is 
found in the exactly similar passage, 
Heb. vii. 13, ov5els tpocéoxnkev TH Ovor- 
acTnplo. TO Ovotactyply cup- 
pepllovrar] ‘share with the altar ;’ 
‘cum altari participantur,’ Vulg., —scil. 
in the offerings made thereon: kadés 
Td cuupepi(ov: Ta Mey yap Kal dAdKavTA 
éylveto, Kal iv povov Tov Bvotacrnpiou 
kal éx Tov Ovowevwr Se 7d uev aiua mpoce- 
xet10 TS Ovotacrnplw, Kal Td oTéap eOv- 
plato TOV de Kpe@y aaipeud Tt eAduBavev 
6 icpeds: oiov Toy déktov Bpaxlova Kad Td 
aTnbtvioyv Kal Td evuerpov, GEcum. 

14. ottas kal 6 Kupiosk.t.d.] § Zh2s 
did also the Long appoint ;’ scil. in 
accordance with the principles already 


referred to. The ascensive ral (‘ita et 
Dominus,’ Vulg.) adduces and empha- 
sizes the confirmation given to the 
general principle by our blessed Lord; 
avTod yap éott pw: ‘ttios yap 6 épyarns 
THS Tpopyis avtod éotw,’ Theod.: see 
Matt. x. 10, Luke x.7. The prominence 
of the xat 6 Kvpios precludes the refer- 
ence of the clause to God. The point 
of the whole is that the law was con- 
firmed by Him who came to fulfil the 
law, and to set forth its fullest signifi- 
cance; delxvucr 5¢ TH vduw ovywdd Kar 
tov Acondtny mpootetaxdta, Theod. 
(Cramer, Caten.). éx TOU 
vayycdtov fv] ‘zo live of the Gospel ;’ 
scil. ‘out of the preaching of it,’ ‘ ex eo 
quod evangelium praedicant,’ Beza: ex- 
planatory or objective infinitive (Don- 
aldson, Gr. § 585), specifying the 
substance of the didrayua; see the 
numerous examples in Kiihner, Gr. § 
473. It is thus better in translation 
to maintain the simple infinitive (‘ or- 
dinavit ... de evangelio vivere,’ Vulg.), 
there being here no latent Set (comp. 
Auth.), but a simple order and tapayye- 
Ata; comp. Matt. x. 5. Foran example 
(Themistius, Ovaz. 23) of the sufficiently 
intelligible Gjv ek, see Kypke zz loc. 
(Vol. 11. p. 214): and for examples of 
the similar and more familiar Gjv amd, 
see Steph. Zhesaur. s.v. Vol. IV. p. 11 
(ed. Hase). 

15. €y> 8 Kt.A.] ‘But L have used 
none of these things;’ scil. of the 
éfouvolav-giving arguments and principles 
just above specified in four forms 


174 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. IX. 15. 


” \ lS) oe A 4 >’ b] U \ / 
eyparyva dé tadta va ovTws yévnta év éuol, KaAov yap pot 


lal > a x \ / 4 PJ ‘ ‘ 
HadAov arolaveiy 7) TO KavYnud pou ovdels KEVOCL. 


(paryeiv al meiv, ver. 4; wh epydecba, 
ver 6; T& capkiKd OepiCev, ver. 11; ek 
Tov evayyeAlov (Hv, ver. 14), and here 
gathered up in the generalizing neuter 
Chrys., Theoph., Gicum., al., 
make the rovrwy refer to the mapa- 
Sevyudtwy (the soldier, the husbandman, 
etc.) already cited, but less probably, 
as less inclusively. Meyer, resting on 
ver. 12, refers it to the preceding 
éfovcia understood in some sort of dis- 
tributive sense,—a sense which Hof- 
mann not unreasonably characterizes 
as ‘schlechterdings unmoglich.’ In 
ver. 12, the Apostle practically says 
the same thing, but there, as the con- 
text shows, mainly with reference to 
the O.T. Here he refers to the N.T. 
dispensation as well as to that of the 
O. T., and uses a tense (contrast éxp7- 
oduny, ver. 12), which carries his prac- 
tice down to the very hour when he is 
writing. The ordinary punctua- 
tion (Rec., Treg., al.) places only a 
colon at rotrwy, but thus misses what 
seems to be the intention of the clause, 
viz. to close the subject of the course 
adopted by the Apostle, and to prepare 
for the change of subject that follows. 

Oix eypaa St tatrta] ‘Vow J write 
not (epistolary aorist) these things ;’ 
viz. the particulars specified from ver. 
4 onward. The Apostle now meets an 
objection that might be urged, passing 
onward, by the 8¢ of transition (merTa- 
Barixéy), to his present subject-matter. 

tva oftws yévnrar év pol] ‘that zt should 
(hereafter) be so done in my case ;’ Ze. 
‘that henceforth I should be supported 
by you and others (iva AauBdvw, The- 
oph.), and avail myself of my minis- 
terial privilege.’ The ev, as usual, 
marks the sphere or substratum in 
which, or on which, the action is con- 
ceived to take place; not ‘unto me,’ 


TauUTa. 


16 egy 


Auth., but ‘in me,’ Vulg.: comp. Matt. 
XVil. 14, érotnoay év avT@, and Gal. i. 24, 
eddtaCov ev éuol rby @edy, and see notes 
in loc. Kahdv yap por paddov 
aro8avetv] ‘ for zt were better (far) for 
me to die ;’ the emphasis resting on 
the prominently placed kaAév, and thus 
suggesting the use of the more strong 
form of comparison; see Kiihner, Gr. 
§ 349°. 3. 3, where the principle of this 
usage is explained. The Gmo@avety, it 
need hardly be said, has no reference 
to a death by hunger (d:apOaphvar Ame, 
Theoph.), but is simply an earnest and 
impassioned form of disavowal: dpa 
Me” Bons cpodpdtntos apvetrat ka) Siaxpi- 
veTat Td Tpayua, Chrys. 4 7d Kav- 
XHPa pov K.t.A.] ‘than that any one 
should make void my glorying, — more 
exactly, ‘my subject or matter of glo- 
rying,’ viz. that I preached the Gospel 
without cost;” comp. ver. 18. The 
construction is here very difficult to 
explain grammatically. To take # as 
equivalent to ‘alioquin ’ (Meyer), seems 
absolutely impossible if we recognize a 
periphrasis of the comparative; # thus 
nearly associated with maAAovy must 
retain its usual sense when in such a 
collocation. It seems almost equally 
difficult either to accept the punctuation 
of Lachmann (amobavetv, } Th Kadxnua* 
ovdels kevéoete), Or to Suppose that after 
% the Apostle abruptly stops (comp. 
Westc. and Hort), and then proceeds 
in a new and direct sentence. Such 
examples have only been found in 
conditional sentences (comp. Rom. ix. 
22,— according to some interpreters), 
where the reader almost naturally sup- 
plies the omitted thought. It remains 
therefore only to translate as above 
sim. Rev.), and to understand a va as 
mentally to be supplied, and the ovéels 
as involving an idiomatically redundant 


Cuap. IX. 15-17. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


175 


yap evayyeriopar, ovK EoTL pol KavVYnUAa, avayKn yap pot 
€mixeitat* oval yap pol éoTw éeay pi) evaryyeMcapar. “ei yap 


16. oval ydp| So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly 


preponderating authority: Mec. oda) 5é. 


negative, examples of which will be 
found in Kiihner, Gr. § 516. 6. A 
difficulty still remains in the future 
kev@oet, which here seems unusually 
out of place, as tending to make the 
mental insertion of tva more difficult. 
All that can be said is, that this use 
of a future after tva does seem fully 
established in the N.T. (see below, 
notes on ver. 18), and that, —in a sen- 
tence like the present, marked with 
some passionateness of utterance, — it 
might have been almost unconsciously 
introduced. Direct negation was latent 
in the Apostle’s thought. 

16. éav yap K.t.d.] ‘Hor tf LT should 
preach the Gospel I have no glorying, 
or, as above, ‘no subject or matter of 
glorying;’ confirmation of the strong 
asseveration in ver. 15. It was need- 
ful for the Apostle thus urgently to 
maintain his present position of inde- 
pendence, for it was on this alone that 
the validity of the natxnua depended: 
preaching the Gospel did nct fer se 
involve any kabvxnua; ovK ott Kadxnua 
7) evayyeAt(ecbat, GAAX 7d GdaTavws 
knptocew, Theoph. avaycn yap 
pot érlkerrar] ‘for necessity 7s laid upon 
me ;’ confirmatory explanation of the 
preceding clause. It was not a matter 
of free choice, but of duty to a Master; 
comp. Acts ix. 15, xiii. 2, xxii. 21, and 
see Estius zx Joc. oval yap pol 
éoti] ‘for woe zs zt to me;’ again a 
ydép confirming, or rather elucidating, 
what has just been said. In this third 
case the particle has more of its ex- 
planatory element; if there was this 
avdyxn, it must verily needs be that 
there was a woe to him if he sought to 
withdraw himself from the duty. On 


the mixed argumentative and explan- 
atory use of the particle, see notes 
on 1 Thess. ii. 1, and on Gal. iv. 22; 
and on the more purely explanatory 
use of it, notes oz Gal. ii. 6. In 
this clause the change to the aor. 
subj. edayyeAtowuat (good authorities, 
but not preponderating, support the 
present) seems intentional, ‘if I shall 
not have preached:’ the thought of 
the Apostle glances from the present 
to that future which in-2 Tim. iv. 7 is 
contemplated as having then begun to 
merge into the past. 

17. eb yap kav «t.A.] For if 7 do 
this willingly T have a reward ;’ eluci- 
dation (‘si enim,’ Vulg.; not ‘nam si,’ 
Clarom.; comp. Hand, Zwrse//. Vol. 
Il. p. 374 Sq., with Vol, Iv. p. 1 sq.) of 
the clause immediately preceding by 
means of a dilemma purely hypothet- 
ical (ei, see notes o7 Gal. i. 9), but well 
calculated to bring out the vdéuos deamo- 
tiuxés (Theod.) under which he was 
acting; see Reuss zz Joc. ‘It is verily 
woe to me; for to take either view, — 
If it is a free-will acting (which is really 
not my case), I have a reward, and to 
miss this would indeed be ovat; if, on 
the other hand, it is not a free-will 
acting (which really is my case — for I 
am a dmnpérys [ch. iv. 1], and appointed 
to this work by Christ), then a steward- 
ship is committed to me, and if an 
oixovduos be not found faithful (ch. iv. 
2), then still more would it be ovat.’ 
The general sentiment of the passage 
is thus clearly brought out: the Apostle 
has no kadxnua in regard of his preach- 
ing the Gospel; for there is an oval 
for him if he does it not: dmou 5& 7d 
oval mapdkerra: ev uh Wo, ovK exee 


176 


CORINTHIANS: 


Cuap. IX. 17, 18. 


aa} a , \ ” > eh ? / ! 
EX@Y TOUTO Tpacow, pc Oov eX@ * eb dé AKWV, OLKOVOLLAY TET I- 


oTEU Bris ov soTly 0 Gos; fa ) G6 
war. Bris ody por éeotiv 0 puabos; iva evayyedcCopevos 


18. evayyéAtov] So Lachm., Tisch.. Treg. Rev.. Westc. and Hort, on very 
clearly preponderating authority: ec. adds tod Xpiotod. 


kavxnua, Origen. To make this verse 
elucidatory of the ov« éor: wot Kadxnua 
of the foregoing verse (Hofmann; so 
too perhaps Clarom.; see above), dis- 
sociates the todro from the evayyeAiow- 
wat, to which it seems clearly to refer, 
and breaks the continuity of the clauses, 
each one of which appears to be con- 
firmed or elucidated (ydp) by the clause 
which follows. et 5 xy] ‘but 
if unwillingly ;’ z.e. without free will 
entering into the matter: the Apostle 
was not reluctant, but was under the 
command of a gracious Master; 7d 
éxav Kal &xwv emt Tod eyxexepioba Kad 
Bh eyKexeipiobat AauBdvwy, Chrys. 
oikovoplay memiorevpar] ‘7 have been 
entrusted with a stewardship ;’ have 
been made an oikovéuos of the mysteries 
of God (Rom. iv. 1 comp. Acts xx. 24), 
and so do but act as every oixovduos 
ought to act, as bretOuvos dv trois ém- 
tax@eio. Chrys.; comp. Luke xvii. Io. 
There is here no fallacy in morals 
(Wordsw.) The Apostle was a d5odA0s, 
but he was one who nevertheless did 
what he bade others do,—é« wWuyxjs 
epyd¢eoOa: (Col. iii. 23, Eph. vi. 7). His 
service, though by his call && avdyxns, 
was, not the less, wer’ edvolas (Eph. vi. 
7). On this form of the accusative, 
see Winer, Gv. § 32. 5, and comp. 
Rom. iii. 2, Gal. ii. 7, 1 Thess. ii. 4, Tit. 
i. 3. In all such cases the accusative 
serves as the defining object, and may 
not improperly be called (as suggested 
by Rumpel, Casuslehre, p. 157 sq.) the 
‘paratactic accusative’; see the large 
collection of examples in Kiihner, Gr. 
§ 410. 6. 

18. tls odv pot éorly 6 prc Ods] ‘what 
then is the reward that comes to me?’ 


b 


‘If, by what has just been said, I really 
am only one to whom an oikovopia has 
been entrusted, and so bound to fulfil 
it without any question of pic@ds, what 
is the reward (if any) which falls to 
my lot?’ The next clause supplies 
the answer, which in effect is—‘to 
receive no reward’ Wetst.), and so to 
have the power of making the cavxnua. 
This does not confuse the pio@ds and 
the xavxnua (as urged by Hofmann): 
the kavxnua was that he preached 
the Gospel free of cost; the pias, 
that, by refusing all pic@ds, he could 
speak as he did to the elders of Eph- 
esus, Acts xx. 33, 34. So nearly, but 
not quite exactly, Origen (Cramer, 
Caten.), odtos otv éeotw 6 pioOds: va 
érov ekouciay Exw, wh Torhow. So in 
effect Chrys. The reading is 
not perfectly certain. 7Zyreg. adopts 
the gen. wou on good uncial authority; 
the preponderance, however, seems 
slightly in favor of the dative. 

Wa evayyeAt{dépevos K.T.A.] ‘that in 
preaching the Gosfel (temporal parti- 
ciple) Z may make the Gospel without 
charge ;’ the tva here, as often in the 
N.T., marking the sort of purposive 
result that was involved in the whole 
matter. In such cases the primary 
force of the particle is not wholly lost 
(see Buttm. Gr. 1.7. p. 204); the idea 
of purpose shades off into that of 
eventuality, and the final sentence 
merges into the objective; see notes 
on ch. iv. 2 and oz 1 Thess. ii. 16, Vv. 4, 
and comp. Abt oz 1 Johvi.g. Meyer, 
for the sake of preserving the fuller 
force of the particle, supposes that the 
question implies, and involves, a nega- 
tive answer, and that the iva depends 


Cuap. IX. 18, 19. 


Yr CORINTHIUAN S&S. 


177 


> / / \ > i > \ x / @ A“ 
adatravov OQjcw TO evayyédov, eis TO WN KaTaYpjcacbaL TH 


> / > Lal > / 
efovoia pou év TO evayyehio. 


Though thus free, I con- 
formed myself to the 
circumstances of those 
to whom I preached, 
that if possible, I might save them. 


onit. The above interpretation, how- 
ever, is simpler, and, it is believed, 
more consistent with those traces of 
later usage which are certainly to be 
observed in the N.T. in the usage of 
this particle. On the use of %va with 
the future see above on ver. 15, and 
on Gal. ii. 4. It is probable that the 
idea of duration, or (as in the case 
of 8rws with a future), perhaps rather 
of zssue and seguence (‘succeed in 
making the Gospel, etc.’) is thus more 
distinctly suggested to the reader: see 
examples in Kihner, Gv. § 553. 4. d, and 
Winer, Gr. § 41. 3. 1. b. eis TO 
#) Kkataxpyoacbar K.7.d.] ‘ that I use 
not to the full my power ( privilege) in 
the Gospel, z.e.in preaching the Gospel, 
—in its sphere or its area of propaga- 
tion: general dzrection and aim of the 
addmavoy TiWévar K.T.A.; see Winer, Gr. 
§ 44. 6, and notes oz 1 Thess. il. II. 
In cases like the present the idea of 
direct purpose is a little obscured, but 
not enough to justify any translation 
implying mere resz/t, or (still more 
improbably) mere reference (‘in respect 
of my not making, etc.,’ Evans) to the 
action implied by the verb. Without 
being at all hypercritical we may thus 
generally distinguish between three 
usages of the infinitive, in sentences 
similar to the present, which we meet 
with not uncommonly in the N.T.,— 
tov with the infinitive; é0re with the 
infinitive ; and eis ro (or mpds 76) with 
the infinitive. Of these, the first seems 
clearly to mark design or intention ; 
comp. Luke xxiv. 29, and see notes oz 
Gal. iii. 10 and Winer, Gr. § 44. 4. 4.; 
the second, plainly result or conse- 


23 


19° EevOepos yap av €k TavTwV Tacw euav- 


Tov edovdkwoa, iva Tovs TAElovas Kepdjow. 


guence ; comp. Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. 
p- 771, and notes oz Gal. ii. 13; the 
third, primarily pzrpose, but still, not 
infrequently as here, a shade of mean- 
ing that seems to lie between purpose 
and vesu/t, and even sometimes to ap- 
proximate to the latter; see notes oz 
1 Thess. ii. 12, and comp. Winer, Gr. § 
44. 6. Lastly, to complete this sum- 
mary, it may be noticed that this: pri- 
mary meaning of eis 7é with the infini- 
tive may be differentiated from that of 
apos 76 with the infinitive by observing 
that in the former the purpose is re- 
garded more as zmmediate, in the latter 
more as z/timate ; see notes oz Eph. 
IVa Tey rand a728 Zid. tends On 
kaTaxpao@a1, see notes on ch. vii. 31. 
19. "HdeiPepos yip dv éx mavtwv] 
‘For being free (now, and perma- 
nently, Winer, Gr. § 45. 2. 4) ofall men;’ 
appended (1b mAgoy Aéyet, Theoph.) 
confirmatory explanation (ydp; see 
notes oz 1 Thess. ii. 1) of the general 
attitude ef non-dependence on others 
which was specified in the preceding 
verses: the very avoidance of using 
his égovcia enabled him, without risk 
of imputation of interested motives, to 
subordinate himself. We have thus, 
not a confirmation of the clause imme- 
diately preceding (Meyer), nor a reply 
to a latent imputation,—that his in- 
dependence was designed to make his 
authority more felt (Hofmann), nor, 
yet again, any enhancement, by way of 
contrast, of what he had stated as to 
his independence (Chrys. ; 0d udvoy ovk 
€AaBov,— GAAa Kal edovAwoa,—a view , 
“clearly incompatible with the ydp), but 
an implied statement of the true 


178 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. IX. 19, 20. 


20 Kal eyevounv Tois "Iovdaiors ws *Iovdatos, va "Iovdaious Kep- 


Snow: Tois wd vowov ws WTO vomov, “2 @V avTOs UTd vomor, 


20. wh dv abrds md vduov] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, 
on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec. omits the clause. 


rationale of the independent attitude 
which was the subject of the katxnua, 
It thus seems desirable to separate 
the verse slightly from the foregoing 
(Westc. and Hort; observe the initial 
capital in 7Z7sch.), and to regard it as 
an independent and elucidatory state- 
ment; comp. Reuss zz /oc. It glances, 
as Beza rightly observes, at the ov eiu) 
éAevOepos (ver. 1) with which the chap- 
ter opens, and shows what was the true 
eAcvbepla. The connection of 
éAebOepos with éx only occurs here: ard 
is the more usual (Rom. vii. 3; comp. 
vi. 18, 22, viii. 2, 21), and the more 
correct, form, as importing no idea of 
immer connection (ék): but merely 
pointing generally to those referred to 
as a body from which the subject stood 
free; comp. Kiihner, Gv. § 430 (intro- 
ductory comment), Harrison, Gr. Prep. 
S.V. ék, Pp. 230. tva Tovs mAclovas 
KepShow] 22 order that I might gain 
(z.e., in effect, ‘save,’ ver. 22) the more ;’ 
definite statement of the purpose of 
the rd éavrdv SovAdou1,—Rence the 
fuller translation. The maAeloves do 
not imply ‘quam plurimi’ (Est., Beng., 
Wordsw.),—a very doubtful interpre- 
tation, but simply ‘the greater number’ 
of those with whom the Apostle came 
into relation, the mdvtas above alluded 
to; see examples of the article in such 
expressions, in Kithner, Gv. § 465. 11. 
For similar instances of this use of 
kepdalvew, see Matt. xviii. 15, 1 Pet. iii. 
I, in both of which passages the fuller 
Christian meaning (‘lucrifit enim quod 
servatur,’ Grot.) is to be distinctly 
recognized. : 

20. Kal éyevouny k.t.X.] And (to give 
special illustrations) 7 became to the 


Jews asa Jew ;’ the cat here appending 
to the general statement of ver. 19 
some special examples. On this use 
of kal, see notes ov Phil. iv. 12, and 
comp. Eph. v. 18, and notes zz Joc. 
Examples of this form of the 7d éauvtdv 
dovAdoat are specified by St. Luke in 
his notices of the circumcision of Tim- 
othy (Acts xvi. 3), and of St. Paul’s 
acquiescence in regard of the request 
made to him by the elders at Jerusalem 
(Acts xxi. 26) ; comp. Acts xviii. 18. 

Tots bd vdpov] ‘to them that are under 
the law ;’ not, ‘under law,’ with ref- 
erence to the law as a general principle 
(Gifford, Zntrod. te Rom. p. 47), which 
would be plainly alien to this passage, 
but with reference to the Aosaic law 
(Est.), as suggested by the preceding 
clause (Jews), and by the contrasted 
clause in ver. 21 (Gentiles). Jews and 
Gentiles appear to be the two broad 
classes in the Apostle’s mind; between 
which to intercalate an ‘under law’ 
(Noachian or otherwise ; comp. Bengel) 
class, seems at variance with the broad 
and simple tenor of the passage. The 
Greek expositors, whose judgment on 
such a matter must be allowed to have 
great weight, though differing in de- 
tails, are unanimous in referring the 
véuos to the Mosaic law: so apparently 
also Copt., which inserts the definite 
article. The rots id vduov is, however, 
more than a mere éreéfyynots Tod mpore- 
pov (Chrys.), as it would naturally in- 
clude all that were bound by the Mosaic 
law, whether dwelling in Judza or 
elsewhere (Hofmann), and so gives to 
the foregoing term “Iovdato its widest 
significance, — Jews, viewed not merely 
in their strictly national, but in their 


Cuap. IX. 20-22. 1 CORINTHIANS. 179 


’ Saag ea , 5 , . 2 ee ey e ” hk 
iva Tovs wd vopov Kepdyjcw: *! rols avopots @S avo“os, LN wv 
dvowos cod arAN Evvopos Xpictod, iva Kepdavw tovs avomous* 


21. @cod ..... Xptorod] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, 
on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec., Oe@..... Xpior@. In the con- 
cluding clause the reading Kepddvw (Westc. and Hort, xepdave) is adopted in 
all the above mentioned edd. on authority very nearly, as conclusive: ec. 
kepSfjow,—a very natural alteration to conform with verses 19 and 20. Tovs 
also is prefixed before avduous in all the same edd. on very clearly preponder- 


ating authority: Zec., omits the article. 


religious, aspect. On the occasional 
reference of the anarthrous véuos to 
the Mosaic law, see Cremer, £70/.- 
Theol. Worterb. p. 433, and comp. notes 
on Gal. ii. 19. +) Gv adros bd 
vopov] ‘ zo0t being myself under the law;’ 
avrés, in contrast to those who were 
so. The Apostle had died to the 
Mosaic law, that he might the more 
fully live to Christ; see Gal. ii. 19. 
The clause appears added, not to meet 
the objections of any opponents, but 
simply out of that depth of feeling on 
this subject which, probably not very 
long before, had found expression in the 
Epistle to the Galatians: comp. Gal. 
v. 48qq- 

21. Tots dvdpots as Avopos] ‘Zo them 
that are without law, as without law ;’ 
ze. to the heathen, as one of them- 
selves, in the mode of address and in 
the tenor of arguments, as, to some 
extent, at Lystra (Acts xiv. 15 sq.), at 
Athens (Acts xvii.; see Origen in 
Cramer, Caz.) apparently, in some de- 
gree, before Felix (Acts xxiv. 25), and, 
not improbably,in addresses to heathens 
who, from time to time, came in con- 
tact with him in Rome (Acts xxviii. 30; 
comp. Phil. i. 13). The term &vouo: has 
here no ethical tinge, but simply stands 
in opposition to the ro?s bd vduor in ver. 
20, and includes all who were not bound 
by the Mosaic law; avouous Aéye Tovs 
ew moAirevouevous Tod vduov, Theod.; 
comp. Suicer, 7hesaur. Vol. I. p. 366, 
Cremer, Worterd. p. 436, and a very 


pertinent quotation in Add. to Esth. 
iv. 12, éuionoa ddtav avduwy Kal BdeAvo- 
gouat Koltny amepituntwy Kal mdvTos 
&AAoTplov. py Ov K.T.A.] ‘220% 
being without law in regard of God, but 
under law in regard of Christ ;’ ex- 
planatory of the true meaning and ex- 
tent of the d&voula which the Apostle 
here alluded to: he was &voyuos, yet 
evvouos. The genitives fall under the 
general category of the gen. of relation 
(see Donalds. Gr. § 453. cc), and the 
more specific idea of dependence on ; 
see the numerous examples in Kiihner, 
Gr. § 421. 4: the Apostle was not 
without law in his dependence on God, 
but under law in his dependence on 
Christ. The meaning with datives 
(ec.) would practically be very little 
different, though the cases are funda- 
mentally opposed (Donalds. Gr. § 455) : 
the idea of dependence would, how- 
ever, have been lost in the more vague 
notion of mere reference ; comp. Winer, 
Gr. § 31. 6. iva. kepSavw Tods 
dvop.] ‘22 order that L might gain them 
that are without law.’ If we here 
adopt the “accentuation of the text, 
kepddvw will be the 1 aor. conj. of the 
older form of aorist éxépdava (Lobeck, 
Phryn. p. 740): if that of Westc. and 
Hort (see above, critical note), it will 
be the future. The former seems more 
likely, but it is impossible to decide 
positively either way. 

22. éyevopny Tois arbevéowy aobevys] 
‘I became weak to the weak. The 


180 


1 CORINTHIANS: 


Cnap. IX. 22. 23. 


92 r / cal > Q , > fal / ivf \ > fal Lal tf 
EYEVOMYV TOLS ADUEVEOL ADVEVNS, Wa TOVS AOVEVELS KEponow * 


e fal ye 
Tos Tacw Yyeyova TavtTa, iva TavTws TWas coco. 


23 crayTa 


5€ Trou Sia TO evayyédLov, iva TVYKOLWWWVOS a’TOD yévopat. 


22. agderns] So Tisch. Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on preponderant 
ancient authority; the internal arguments being also on the same side: Rec. 


prefixes @s; Zachm. includes it in brackets. 


The rd before mdvta (Rec.) is 


rejected by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on greatly prepon- 


derating authority. 


23. mavta] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and ffort, on very greatly 


preponderating authority: Aec., rovTo. 


whole tenor of the latter half of ch. 
viii. serves to define the meaning of 
aobevhs, as aobevav 7H Tiore: (Rom. xiv. 
E;COMp. 1D; XV. Tt MeSS, avepe 4) 
weak and scrupulous in matters re- 
lating to Christian practice; see notes 
on 1 Thess. l.c., and comp. Suicer, 
Thesaur. Vol. 1. p. 546, Cremer, Wor- 
terbuch, p. 529. To such the Apostle 
became aoGevtjs ; he viewed matters as 
from their standpoint, sympathized 
with their difficulties, and gave his 
advice accordingly. Origen (Cramer, 
Caten.) cites in illustration the advice 
given in ch. vii. 2, 11, and other and 
similar passages. To such the term 
kepdfjow is legitimately applicable. 
Treated without consideration they 
might become alienated and antago- 
nized, and at last be verily driven into 
the sad company of the d&moAAduevor: 
consider ch. viii. 11, Rom. xiv. 15. 

Tois Tact K.T.A.] ‘¢o all men have LT 
become all things;’ the article with mdytes 
specifying ¢e all with whom he had 
come in contact, and the perfect yéyova 
designedly marking the enduring nature 
of the principle on which he acted. 
To these mdvtes he was always ready 
to be mayra, z.e. ‘omnium moribus et 
affectibus guantum licet se accommo- 
dare, Est. It was no indifferentism, 
no compliance with prevailing preju- 
dices, but a spiritually wise sympathy 
that guided the Apostle in all his 
varied relations to those with whom 


for the time he had to do: see Neander 
zz loc., whose comments on this clause 
are just and suggestive. tva 
TavTws Tas Chow] ‘that by all means 
L may save some:’ by every manner 
that from time to time might be avail- 
able; ‘omni quovis modo,’ Grimm. 
The meaning ‘utique,’ ‘ profecto’ 
(comp. Chrys., De Wette), is lexically 
admissible, but less in harmony with 
the tenor of the context. It will be 
observed that in thus closing the noble 
utterance the Apostle passes from the 
kepdnow of preceding clauses to the 
definite and unmistakable oéow of the 
present; comp. Calvin 77 Joc. 

23. wavTa St wow «.7.d.] 6 But all 
things I do for the Gospel’s sake ;’ 
closing statement by means of the par- 
tially adjunctive and partially contras- 
tive dé, the primary contrastive force 
of the particle (see Kiihner, Gr. § 526. 
2) being traceable in the implied state- 
ment, that not only in reference to 
what was specified, dz¢ in all matters, 
there was only one principle of action, 
— d1a Td evayyéAtov: ‘hactenus ostendit 
Apostolus, tanto studio se laborasse in 
Evangelio propter aliorum -salutem : 
nunc declarat se id faciendo etiam suam 
ipsius salutem spectasse,’ Estius; see 
Klotz, Devar. Vol. I. p. 361 sq., and 
comp. notes on ch. viii. 8. It was da 
7d evayyéAtov, ‘propter Evangelium,’ 
Vulg., a pregnant expression more fully 
explained in the following clause. 


Cuap. IX. 23-25. 


Run, as men run for a 
prize; and as I do. 


CORINTHIANS: 


181 


4 Ov« oldate Ste of ev atadiw TpéyovTes 


a ef 
mavtes pev tpéxovow, eis dé AawPaver 70 BpaPelov; obtas 


lal € > / / > 
TpéxeTe, Wva katadaBynte. ™ mas dé 0 aywrifouevos TavTa éyKpa- 


tva ovykowwwves K.7.A.] 6272 order that I 
may bea fellow partaker thereof (with 
others) :’ explanatory statement of the 
preceding words. The Apostle was 
thus doing all things that he might 
become a sharer with others (‘ovv et 
yiyvouat magnam habent modestiam,’ 
Bengel) in the Gospel and the salvation 
that was proclaimed in it; 6 yap rod 
evayyeAlov okdmos Tov avOparwy 7 Tw- 
tnpia, Theodoret. This was the Bpa- 
Betov to which he alludes in the fol- 
lowing verse. The && 1d evayyéAsov 
has thus no reference to spreading the 
Gospel, but to sharing in its blessings: 
‘participem evangelii fieri est ejus 
fructum_percipere,’ Calvin. 

24. Ovx oldare «.t.d.] Avow ye not 
that they which run in a course run 
all ;’ exhortation suggested by the last 
clause of the preceding verse, and by 
the remembrance of the great purpose 
that must needs animate all action; 
the possibility of running and not 


_ obtaining (comp. ver. 27) naturally 


emerges from what has been said, and 
gives a terse solemnity to the exhorta- 
tion; mAnkTiK@Tepoy avtois Siadréyera, 
Theoph. The allusion (see Phil. iii. 
14, 2 Tim. iv. 7) is obviously (év oradie 
TpEXELV, TTEpavos, Ver. 25) to the games, 
and, as the circumstances of the case 
indicate, most probably to the Isth- 
mian games, which, as we know, were 
continued after the fall of Corinth 
(Pausan. //7st. 11,2; comp. Suet. Vero, 
§ 24); but it is no more than an allu- 
sion, and necessitates no pressing of 
details, e.g. in reference to the orddioy, 
which is more prominent in connection 
with the Olympian games, or in refer- 
ence to the orépavos (ver. 25), which, 
although equally @uprés (whether a 


wreath of wild olive or of pine) was dif- 
ferent at the Olympia and the Isthmia. 
For a description of the otddioy (in 
length 203 yards), see Winer, Real- 
Weorterb. s.v. ‘Stadium,’ and Smith, 
Dict. of Antig. p. 1055 (ed. 2). 

els 8 AapBaver rd BpaBetov] ‘ dut one 
vecetveth the prize ;’ statement (from 
the known facts of the case) designed 
to enhance the warning which follows. 
The BpaBetoy (as in Phil. iii. 14) is the 
prize given to the victor, — in the case 
of the Isthmian victor, a pine-wreath, 
in the case of the Christian, (w) aidvos, 
I Tim. vi. 12. The derivation of the 
word is uncertain; see notes oz Phil. 
ili. 14. Whatever be its derivation, 
‘bravo’ (Wordsw., comp. Edwards) is 
not etymologically connected with it, 
the basis of our word ‘brave ’ being 
almost certainly of Ccltic origin: see 
Skeat, Ztym. Dict. s.v. p. 75, 

ottws tpéxere K.T.A.] ‘50 ru, in order 
that ye may attain ;’ scil., ‘run as the 
successful competitor runs, in order 
that, etc.,’ the #a having its regular 
and proper force, and not (as Beza, al.) 
to be regarded as a mere equivalent of 
éore. Such a usage is probably only 
once (Rev. xiii. 13) certainly to be 
found in the N.T.; see Winer, Gr. § 53. 
9.6. On this text see a sound prac- 
tical sermon by Frank, Serm. xxvu. 
Vol. I. p. 432 sqq. A.C. Libr.), see 
also, on the former portion, Newman, 
Paroch. Serm. Vol. v. p. 289 sqq. 

25. was 8 6 dywvildpevos] ‘ But 
every man that striveth in the games ;’ 
statement, in the form of a slightly 
antithetical specification, of the con- 
dition to which every competitor must 
conform. The participle with the 
article is here equivalent to a substan- 


182 


r CORINTHIANS, 


Cuap. IX. 25, 26. 


TeveTal, exeivor ev ovv wa POaptov otéhavov AaBwow, jyueis Sé 


apOaprov. 


tive (Winer, Gr. § 45. 7), but has this 
advantage that it presents to the 
reader more distinctly the procedure, 
the element of time not being wholly 
obliterated. TaYTO éyKpaTeveTar] 
‘7s temperate in all things ;’ the mavra 
being the appended accusative defining 
the object to which the 7d éyxparever Oat 
extends: see Kriiger, Sprach/. § 46. 4. 
1, notes oz Phil. 1. 6, and on the 
general principle of this structure, 
Kiihner, Gy. § 410.1. This accusative 
is sometimes termed the accus. of ‘ the 
remoter object’ (see notes oz 1 Zim. 
vi. 5), sometimes the accus. of the 
guantitative (see notes oz Phil. iii. 8), 
or of the gualitative object (Hartung, 
Casus. p. 55, 61, notes oz Gal. vi. 6), 
according to the tenor of the word or 
‘the context, but is in every place re- 
ferable to the same principle of the 
accusative supplying the complementary 
notion or the explanatory adjunct 
which is required for fully under- 
standing the predication; see Kiihner, 
Gr. § 410. 6, and the full and instruc- 
tive comments of Rumpel, Casuslehre, 
p- 161 sqq. The probable origin of 
the construction is stated in notes oz 
Tim. vi. 5. éxeivor piv odv k.T.A.] 
‘they verily (2.e. the competitors in the 
games), in order that they may receive a 
corruptible crown, but we (Christians) 
an incorruptible ;’ the verb being 
mentally supplied from the preceding 
éyxparevera, the wey being antithetical 
to the succeeding 6é, andso dropped in 
translation, and the ody, with its usual 
retrospective reference (Donalds. Gr. § 
548. 31), continuing and concluding the 
subject and the contrast: comp. Phil. 
ii. 23, and on the associated particles, 
see Moulton’s note to Winer, Gr. § 52. 
8) and comp. notes on ch. vi. 4. It 
thus seems best with Tisch. and 


26 2.,. , ef L ¢ > > 5 ao e 
ey@® TOWVY OVTWS TPEYW @S OVUK GONADS, OUTWS 


Westc. and Hort, to place only a 
comma after éyxpareverat, and not, as 
in Auth., to break the verse into two 
semi-independent sentences. On the 
verse, see Frank, Sevm. xxvill. Vol. 
Il. p. 1 sqq. (A.-C. Libr.), and on this 
and the two following verses, Mill, 
Univ. Serm. XXII. p. 422 sqq. 

26. é€y@ tolvuy «.7.A.] ‘LZ then so run 
as not uncertainly ;’ consequent and 
concluding statement of the principle 
on which the Apostle (éyé is emphatic), 
in accordance with what he had already 
said, himself regularly acted ; the rofvuy, 
with its usual modified inferential force 
(see Kiihner, Gr. § 545. 4, Hartung, 
Partik, Vol. I. p. 348), marking the 
consequent nature of the action adopted, 
the reason why he acted in the manner 
subsequently mentioned ; see Hofmann 
iz loc. The particle occurs only in two 
other passages, Luke xx. 25, and Heb. 
xiil. 13, and in both (according to the 
best text) at the beginning of the 
clause —a position which it hardly ever 
occupies in classical writers; see 
Lobeck, Phryn. p. 342. It always 
marks a weak and, so to say, transitory 
form of conclusion, and thus stands in 
contrast with the stronger and more 
prominently placed tolyap: see esp. 
Baumlein, Partzk. p. 251 sq. 

In the ds od« GbyAws the ds answers to 
the preceding oftws and marks the 
mode or the asfects under which the 
tpéxew took place (comp. Bernhardy, 
Synt. p. 333, and notes oz Eph. v. 22, 
and ov Col. iii. 4), while the ov« adnrAws 
(scil. tpéxwv) defines more exactly. 
There was no want of clearness in 
course or direction; the Apostle xara 
oxémov édiwxey (Phil. iii. 14), and with 
no uncertain or unsteady step (‘non 
quasi in incertum,’ Vulg., Goth., ; sim. 
Arm.); he knew whither and in whose 


rt, 


Cuap. IX. 26, 27. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 183 


f ¢ > pe A Ld Q7 9 re / an! lal \ 
TuKTEvw WS OK aépa Sépwv* * ad Hrwmidfo pov TO cHua Kai 


Sovraywya, 1 Tws ddAXrous KnpvEAas avTOS adoKYLOS YéEVvOpUAL. 


presence he was running the great race 
of eternal life. The Syr. (‘in aliquid 
quod ignotum sit’), Copt. (‘non ad 
opus’), lose the full force of the graphic 
adnaAws: the Aith., as only too often, 
gives a short and unsatisfactory para- 
phrase. as ovk dépa Sépav] ‘as 
not smiting the air ;’ the ovk being 
closely bound up with the words that 
follow, and, as always with participles 
in the N. T., negativing distinctly and 
emphatically the predication of the 
verb so that the ov« a¢pa S¢pwy becomes 
a sort of concrete predicate ; see Winer, 
Gr.§ 55.5.8. The ‘non quasi aerem 
verberans’ of the Vulgate (compare 
Auth.) thus misses the exact force of 
the sharply enunciated ‘ut non aerem 
cedens’ (Beza), which is conveyed by. 
the original. Some of the patristic 
commentators see in the words a 
tacit reference to the devil,—éxw yap 
bv TAHEw, TovtéoT1, Tov SidBodroy (Chrys., 
Theoph.), but miss the true idea, viz. 
that it is the Gua (Tis capKéds, Col. ii. 
11; comp. Rom. vi. 6, vii. 24) against 
which the Apostle directs his blows. 
These blows were not struck against 
the empty air, but, as the next clause 
shows, fell firmly on their object. The 
idea of a oxiapaxia (Bengel, Wordsw., 
al.) is thus alien to the context: the 
Apostle is describing not ‘que cer- 
tamini serio preemitterentur’ (Bengel), 
but the ‘ certamen’ itself. 

27. GAN trwmdto pout copa] ‘det’ 
(in contrast with the two preceding 
negative clauses) .‘/ druise my body,’ 
‘contundo corpus meum,’ Beza; bruise 
it black and blue (‘lividum facio,’ 
Clarom.), each blow striking it. The 
word, as the derivation indicates (id 
&), properly means making, by blows, 
livid marks under the eyes (Arist. Rhet. 
mi. 11, Plutarch, Mor. p. 921 F), and 


thence, generally, anywhere on the 
body. It thence passes naturally into 
a metephorical meaning; see Luke 
xviii. 5, and compare Arist. Pax, 541, 
modes orwmacueva. The wordis fully 
discussed and illustrated in Suicer, 
Thesaur. Vol. I. p. 1400 sq. Some 
later Mss. (see authorities in 7Z7sch.) 
read brwmd(w, but the reading, though 
advocated by Hofmann, is rightly re- 
jected by all the best critical editors. 

kal SovAaywyo] ‘and lead it off as a 
bond-slave ;? as a victor, who having 
conquered his adversary, leads him off 
as a captive anda slave: comp. Diodor. 
fist. XII. 24, mpos tov &pxovta Bov- 
Aaywyeiv. The completeness of the 
subjugation of the ‘flesh with its 
affections and lusts’ is well marked by 
this emphatic word. On this text see 
Frank, Serm. xxv. Vol. I. p. 397 sqq.- 
(A.-C. Libr.), and on the subject of 
Christian discipline generally, Harless, 
Chr. Eth. § 44. c, p. 359 sqq. (Transl), 
Rothe, Zheol. Eth. § 873, Vol. Il. p. 
470 sqq. (ed. 2). eh tras &AXots 
Knpvéas k.T.A.] ‘lest by any means, after 
having been a herald to others, I myself 
might be rejected, —‘having declared 
the conditions and nature of the mighty 
contest by Christian preaching;’ the 
verb retaining its primary meaning 
conformably with the whole foregoing 
illustration, but also implying the 
particular means by which the Christian 
herald performed his great duty. De 
Wette suggests that if the metaphor 
had been intended to be maintained 
the Apostle would have rather written 
Khpué yevduevos. Possibly; but, in the 
midst of words so appropriate and 
pertinent, it seems unlikely that all the 
primary force of the word is to be 
obliterated. In the serious words that 
close the verse, a&déximos seems to be 


184 


Take warning from our 
fathers in the wilder- 
ness; do not as they 
did; take heed, but vue 
be trustful. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. IX. 27-X. 2 


X. Ov Gér(w yap vas ayvociv, aderpoi, 


v4 e , id lal 4 ec 5 \ UA 
OTL Ol TATEPES NUMV TaVTES UTTO THY vepEednv 


Hoav Kal twavtes Sia THs Oaracons OuAAOov, 2 Kal TavTes eis 


1. yap] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly 


preponderating evidence: ec., 5é. 


also, to some extent, a ‘vocabulum 
agonisticum’ (Bengel); not so much 
‘reprobus,’ Vulg., as ‘rejectaneus,’ 
Beza, al. ‘uskusans,’ [reprobatus] 
Goth.,—rejected, sc. as unworthy of 
the crown and the prize. 

The doctrinal deduction thus becomes, 
to some extent, modified; still the 
serious fact remains that the Apostle 
had before him the possibility of losing 
that which he was daily preaching to 
others. As yet he counted not himself 
to have attained (Phil. iii. 12); that 
blessed assurance was for the closing 
period of a faithful life (2 Tim. iv. 7): 
comp. Martensen, Chr. Dogm. § 235, 
p- 398 sq. (Transl.), and Chr. £th. 
Part 11. § 166, p. 403 sq. (Transl.). 


X. 1-13. Warning, with closing en- 
couragement, against the sins comnitted 
by their forefathers in the wilderness. 

1. Ov O€Aw yap K.t.r.] ‘For LF would 
not have you ignorant, brethren,’ solemn 
confirmation (ydp) of the foregoing im- 
plied exhortation to self-discipline and 
self-denial by examples taken from the 
early history of the Jewish nation. 
The formula ob @éAw (or OéAomev) ayvo- 
eiv, occurs six times in St. Paul’s Epp. 
(Rom. i. 13, xi. 25, 1 Cor. xii. 1, 2 Cor. 
i. 8, 1 Thess. iv. 13), and in all marks 
the introduction of a subject of im- 
portance: what followed was some- 
thing that was not to be overlooked or 
ignored, ot marépos Tpav[ ‘or 
fathers ;? te. our forefathers in the 
wilderness,’ — not with any reference 
to spiritual descent, or to the idea of 
the Christian Church being a continu- 


ation of the Jewish (Alf.), but simply 
with a national reference, many — 
though not the majority — of those ad- 
dressed, being of Jewish descent ; comp. 
Rom. iv. 1, where the 7uév is similarly 
used, and, as far as numbers were 
concerned, still more appropriately. 
On the number of the Jews in all parts 
of the world, see Philo, de Legat. Vol. 
II. p. 586 (ed. Mangey). 

Tavres bd THY veheAny Foav] “were all 
under the cloud, scil. the known cloud 
(Ex. xiii. 21, xiv. 19) which was the 
seat of the guiding presence of Jeho- 
vah among His covenant people: 
comp. Ps. cv. 39. The host that fol- 
lowed the mystic cloud may readily 
be conceived as to a great extent under 
its surface (76): see Num. x. 34 
(Alex.), 7 vepéAn eyevero oxidCovoa én 
avrois nuepas, and comp. Wisdom xix. 
7, Thy mapeuBorAyy oxidCovoa vepedn. 
All (five times repeated) enjoyed the 
mercies and privileges mentioned in 
this and the following verses; but not 
with all, nay, not with the greater por- 
tion of them, was God well pleased 
(ver. 5). 

2. es Tov Mavoty eBarrlocavro] ‘ ve- 
ceived baptism unto Moses ;’ the middle 
verb here having its not unusual causa- 
tive sense (Donalds. Gr. § 432. I. ce, 
Kiihner, Gv. § 374. 7); comp. Gal. v. 
3, vi. 13. It may be observed, how- 
ever, that in the later Greek the dif- 
ference between the aor. middle and 
the aor. passive, is, in cases such as 
the present, practically scarcely appre- 
ciable; see Kiihner, Gr. § 377. 4. ¢. 
obs. The strong and significant Bamtt- 


- 


Cuap. X. 2-4. Fr €ORINTHIANS. 185 


n \ lal 
tov Mavony éBarticavto év TH vepédyn Kai év 7H Oadraoon, 


8xal Tavtes TO a’TO Bpaua TvevpaTiKov Eparyov, * Kal TavTes 


2. éBarricayvto] So Rec., Treg. (with margin), Rev., Westc. and Hort (with 
margin),—still only on the authority of B, the later mss., the great body of 
mss., and Ff:—Lachm., Tisch., éBartic@noav. Internal evidence, however, so 
clearly favors the more difficult reading éBamrricuyto, of which éBamrric@ncay 
would be a very natural correction, that we seem justified in the retention 


of Rec. 


(ca8a: cis (see Rom. vi. 3, Gal. iii. 27, 
and comp. Matt. xxviii. 19, Acts viii. 
Roy Sy I'Cor. 1. 13) 915, al.) marks 
the sort of close spiritual union be- 
tween Moses and the people: he was 
their pecitns (Gal. iii. 19), and the 
leader appointed by God (mpwroardtns, 
CEcum.) in whom they believed: see 
Ex. xiv. 13. On the meaning of the 
formula, see notes oz Gal. iii. 27, and 
comp. Cremer, 476/.-Theol. Worterb. 
Dp: 127. év TH vedéAy Kal év TH 
Oardoon] ‘27 the cloud and in the sea.’ 
They passed through the latter, and 
were under (id) and overshadowed by 
the former, so that the sea and the 
cloud, each, materially as well as lo- 
cally (the cloud was, as it were, dif- 
fused and suspended water ; comp. Gen. 
i. 7, Job xxvi. 8, contrast Jude 12), 
were the element in which their typical 
baptism took place. To regard the 
vepédn as symbolizing the Holy Spirit 
(Theodoret, Maier) seems inconsistent 
with the simple and broad character 
of the passage. Moreover, the cloud- 
baptism took place first (see Ex. xiii. 
21),— an inversion of the doctrinal 
order (John iii. 5), which, in a passage 
of this nature, would probably have 
been avoided, if the vepéAn was in- 
tended by the Apostle here to symbo- 
lize the Spirit. Observe, too, the 
repetition of the preposition, which 
enhances the difficulty. For a sermon 
on this verse, see Lightfoot, Works, 
Vol. vi. p. 412 sqq. (ed. Pitman). 

3. TOadTd Boapa mvevpatikdy] ‘¢he 

24 


same spiritual food ;’ the substantive 
and adjective coalescing, as it were, to 
form one compound idea, — ‘the same 
food, and it was spiritual food:’ see 
Winer, Gr. § 20. I. a, and comp. Gal. 
i. 4, and notes zz loc. The spiritual 
food referred to was, it need hardly be 
said, that which typified one part of 
the other sacrament (comp. John vi. 
31, 32), the manna (Ex. xvi. 14, 15), 
which, though not the true &pros ék 
Tod ovpavod (John vi. 32), very dis- 
tinctly typified it by its supernatural 
origin and character. The 
reading is somewhat doubtful: 1d aird, 
though bracketed by Westc. and Hort, 
is supported by an amount of external 
evidence that cannot be set aside; 
but the order of the three following 
words is more open to doubt. Z%sch., 
Treg., Westc.and ffort adopt the order 
mvevp. Bp@ua epayov (Lachm., mv. &p. 
BpGpa, with wholly insufficient author- 
ity) on good and, externally considered, 
perhaps slightly preponderant, author- 
ity: the strong likelihood, however, of 
correction, on account of grammatical 
reasons, seems just to turn the scale in 
favor of the text (Rec., Rev.). 

4. To add k.T.A.] ‘the same spiritual 
drink ;’ as at Rephidim, when the rock 
in Horeb was smitten (Ex. xvii. 6; 
comp. Num. xx. 2 sqq.), and the waters 
came forth so abundantly that both the 
congregation and their cattle drank of it. 
That the aorist @mov here means ‘ they 
drank throughout,’ z.e. from end to end 
of their wanderings (Evans) cannot be 


186 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


CHAP. X. 4. 


y as > a 
TO QUTO TVEvpAaTLKOY ETLOY Troma’ ETrWoV yap EK TVEVpLATLKHS 


akorovbovons méTpas, » métpa Se Hv 6 Xpiatos* *adN ov‘ €v 


4. 7) avTd mvevpatinoy @mov méua] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and 
ffort, on clearly preponderating authority: Lec., Rev., 7d abTd méua mvevpaTtiKdy 


€mtov. 


This latter reading would be in symmetrical order with the former 
clause, but is, for that very reason, open to suspicion. 


In the last clause the 


preponderance is in favor of the text (so Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Westc. and 


fort): Rec., Rev., 4 5& wérpa. 


correctlymaintained. The tense simply 
implies ‘quod preteriit, sed ita ut non 
definiatur quam late pateat id quod 
actum est,’ Fritz. de Aor. Vi, p. 17: 
see the valuable remarks of Kiihner, 
Gr. § 386. 3. 6, and comp. notes oz 
Gal. v. 24. émwvov yap «.T.A.] 
‘for they drank from a spiritual rock 
accompanying them ;’ semi-parenthet- 
ical confirmation of the preceding 
clause by a statement of the actual 
circumstances; it was verily sfzrztual 
drink,- for it came from a sfiritual 
rock, and that rock followed them. 
The imperfect émvoy marks, with its 
usual descriptive force, what those re- 
ferred to did on their journey (see 
Kiihner, Gr. § 383. 2, Schmalfeld, Syzzz. 
§ 55), the tertiary predicate &koAovbobons 
Donalds. Gr. § 492) just noting an 
additional circumstance which makes 
the passage more intelligible. The 
exact meaning of the whole clause is, 
however, doubtful. That there was 
an old tradition among the Jews that a 
mysterious well, ‘sicut petra, sicut 
alveus apum, et globosus’ (Bammidbar, 
R.S. 1, cited by Wetst.), accompanied 
the children of Israel during the forty 
years of their. wanderings, — appears 
to be certain (see the quotations in 
Lightfoot, Sch6ttgen, and Wetst.): but 
it may be reasonably doubted whether 
St. Paul is here referring to the tra- 
dition, there being nothing whatever 
in the words to make such a reference 
by any means the certainty that it is 
deemed by Alf. al. The prominent 


word throughout is mvevpatinds: the 
food was spiritual, and so too was the 
drink, for the rock out of which it 
came (whether at Rephidim or Kadesh, 
— if the occasions were really different, 
—or elsewhere) was no earthly rock, 
but a spiritual rock, a manifestation, 
on each occasion, of the spiritual and 
wonder-working presence of Christ, 
who, as the Adyos &capkos, thus vouch- 
safed to accompany and to help His 
people; comp. Wisdom x. 15, and see 
Bull. Def. Fid. Nic. cap. 1. 11. It was 
thus the knowledge of the mystery, 
viz. that the yet unrevealed and not 
yet incarnate Word was ever present 
in the Church of the wilderness, and 
not a grotesque Rabbinical tradition, 
that suggested to the Apostle this 
illustration of the spiritual nature of 
the wéua of the Israelites. The Bpadua 
spoke for itself: comp. Psalm Ixxviii. 
24, 25. 

% St wérpa k.t.d.] ‘and the rock (the 
mvevpatikh métpa here spoken of) was 
Christ ;’ was verily identical with 
Christ, as the manifestation of His 
wonder-working presence. So in effect 
Phot. (Cramer, Catez.), though some- 
what obliterating the idea of actual 
identity ; aicOn7 uty jv % wérpa SnAovdte 
7 Udwp Tois ‘IopanAltas dvaBAvoaca: 
GAN OdX? TH oikela Picer TodTO eBAucer, 
GAAG TH Suvduer THS Kar’ évépyeray Tapov- 
ons avTh mvevmatinjs wétpas Kal &koAov- 
Oovons tH xpeia tay Sujdvrwv. The 
streams of the spiritual rock were to 
the Israelites what the spiritual food 


CHap. X. 4-6. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 187 


n f > lal > f e / Ne) a 
FOLS TELOTLY AUTWY NuooKna ev 0) Ocos, KATECTPWUTNTAY Yap 


év TH €pijpo. 


6 la) bY: J € Lal > Nel > XN \ 
Tadta 5€ TvTrot nuav éeyernOnoav, eis TO py 


5. nvddcnoev] So Lachm., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, with ABC and 


a few cursives: Rec., Zisch., evdoxnoev. 


of the precious blood of Christ is to 
Christians. In each case we recognize 
the mystery of a Real Presence: ‘vere 
presens erat’ (scil. petra spiritualis), 
Bengel: see Calvin zz Zoc. On this 
and the preceding verse, see a discourse 
by Mede, Works, Vol. I. p. 325 sqq. 
(London, 1664). 

5: GAN’ odk év Tots mreloow k.T.A.] 
‘ Howbett, with the greater part of them 
God was not well pleased ;’ the Gard 
with its proper adversative force (‘aliud 
jam hoc esse, de quo sumus dicturiy,’ 
Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 2) calling at- 
tention to the sad truth, that though 
all had these mercies vouchsafed to 
them, the greater part, nay verily all 
save two, had incurred God’s dis- 
pleasure, had received them in vain. 
Long-continued murmurings called 
forth at last the solemn sentence, ‘ Ye 
shall not come into the land, concern- 
ing which I lifted up my hand that I 
would make you dwell therein, save 
Caleb the son of Jephunneh, and 
Joshua the son of Nun, ... as for you, 
your carcasses shall fall in this wilder- 
ness, Num. xiv. 30, 32 (Rev.). 
Kateotpobyncav yap] ‘for they were 
overthrown ;’ not merely ‘ceciderunt,’ 
Syr., but ‘prostrati sunt,’ Vulg., Copt. : 
their overthrow (by death) was the 
judicial act of God; see Num. xiv. 16, 
katéotpwoev (Heb. ‘mactavit’) abrods 
év 7H é€pjuw, and comp, Job xii. 23, 
katactpwyyiwy €dvn. The word occurs 
both in earlier (Herod. vil. 53, xaré- 
OTpwrTo mdvTes, IX. 26, KaTéstpwyTo of 
BdpBapor), and later Greek (2 Macc. v. 
26, xl. II, xii. 38, al.), the original 
meaning of ‘prostration’ or ‘ over- 
throw’ (from which there is no need 


here to depart) often passing into the 
general meaning of ‘slaying’ or ‘destroy- 
ing;’ comp. Atlian, (7st. Anzm. VII. 2, 
Aomds .... avTov’s KaTéoTpwoe, and Xen. 
Cyrop. Wl. 3. 64. of Teépra .. 
kateotp@vyvucay. In the latest Greek 
the word is found in the technical 
meaning of ‘entering in a public docu- 
ment;’ see Ducang. Gloss.s.v. Fora 
discourse on this verse, see Mede, 
Works, Vol. I. p. 333 sqq. (London, 
1664). 

6. Tatra 8 kK1.A.] ‘Vow these 
things’ (‘beneficia qua populus ac- 
cepit; et peccata que idem admisit,’ 
Bengel) ‘were our examples;’ not 
‘examples of us,’ ‘figures of us,’ 
Wordsw. (‘in figura facta sunt nostri,’ 
Vulg.), ‘so that we are the avtitumai,’ 
Meyer, but —‘were (or became) ex- 
amples for us,’ Arm.; ‘figura nobis 
erant,’ Syr. Copt. (see the expansion in 
f&th.), the general history mvolving a 
typical significance. The jju@v is thus 
a gen. of the object rather than of the 
subject (pbs judas, Origen), z.c. ‘types or 
examples to guide us:’ see Winer, G7. 
30. I. a, and compare Donalds. Gr. § 
454. aa. The former interpretation is 
grammatically tenable (comp. Rom. v. 
14), and appears in the margin of Rev., 
but it almost necessitates the awkward- 
ness of regarding tavra as an accus. of 
reference, whereas the position of the 
pronoun is clearly one of emphasis. 
If tadra be retained as the nominative, 
the awkwardness is even greater: 
events would then be regarded as in 
typical relation to persons. That the 
Tumot were of a monitory character, 
naturally follows from the statement in 
ver. 5, which, as it were, prepares the 


. TOAAOUS 


188 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. X. 6, 7. 


“ An b] . a \ > a > s 
clvar pas eriOupntas KaKor, Ka0ws Kakelvor émreOvpnoav. 


7 unde eldwrodatpat yiverOe, Kalws TEs avTaV* WaTEp YéyparT- 


7. Samep] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, with clearly 


preponderating authority: Rec., ds. 


The form re@y (N, wiv is adopted by Z7sch., 


Westc. and Hort, on good, but apparently not preponderating, authority. 


reader for the subsequent details: ra 
map’ éxeivous yevdueva év taker TUTwy Bv- 
vara Has madevev, Theodorus. The 
verb is plural, not only by the principle 
of attraction (Kiihner, Gr. § 369. 3), but 
in recognition of the different details 
into which the radta was to be ex- 
panded. In verse 11 the details are, 
as it were, again collected together in 
the raira, and verbs singular follow. 
In regard of meaning, it may be re- 
marked that éyevn@yoay is passive only 
in form: see Thomas Mag. p. 189, 
Lobeck, Phxyz. p. 108 sq., and notes 
on Eph. iii. 7, and on Col.iv. 7. The 
form is a later and Doric form. 

els TO pi) clvat] ‘40 the intent that we 
should not be:’ purpose involved in 
these typical and monitory dispensa- 
tions. The circumstances of the past 
did not only admit of an application to 
the Church of the present, but involved 
it teleologically ; see Hofmann 77 /oc., 
and for details of this application 
(sometimes fanciful) made by early 
writers, the notes and citations of 
Wordsw. 77 Joc. érvOupntas 
Kakov] ‘/usters after evil things, as they 
also lusted,—scil. in their various de- 
sires after evil things,— not exclusively 
in the particular case mentioned, Num. 
xi. 4; the correlating kai marking that 
the Corinthians would be like them if 
they so lusted: each party would alike 
be émOuuntal; comp. notes oz 1 Thess. 
ii. 19. The «al disappears in the corre- 
sponding clauses in the verses that 
follow; and quite naturally. The 
present verse is general ; ‘fundamentum 
malorum concupiscentia,’ Bengel: the 
succeeding verses deal with the varied 


exemplifications of the evil principle. 
To iterate the nai (Rec. inserts the 
particle in verses 9, 10) would make the 
verses monotonous, and add nothing to 
the force of the statements. The gen- 
eral principle then being laid down, the 
Apostle proceeds to specify. To de- 
sire still to ‘continue usages (ch. viii. 1 
sq.) which practically involved a dis- 
tinct contact with the heathenism of 
the past is the first and worst instance 
of such an émOuuia. 

7. pySé elSododdtpar yiver Ge] ‘zezther 
become idolaters ;’ transition into the 
imperatival form, the wndé, as Hofmann 
rightly observes, preserving its con- 
nection with the mu in the preceding 
verse, and indicating that though the 
émOuuerv is there probably general in its 
scope, the particular instance of Num. 
xi. 4 was present in the Apostle’s 
thoughts. The strong term eidwAo- 
Adtpa is used as marking quietly but 
distinctly the danger they incurred in 
having any contact with eidwAdéuta or 
feasts in the eidwAecfoy (ch. viii. 10): 
npeua Tots Ta eldwddbuvTa éaOiovtas 
aivirrerat, Chrys. (Cramer, Cat.) The 
garyeiy kad metvy of the citation makes 
the significance of the warning perfectly 
clear. The passage referred to is Ex. 
Xxxii. 6, where the festival is described 
that was held the day after the altar 
had been built before the golden calf. 
It is quoted exactly as in the LXX. 
matte] ‘zo sfort;’ to take part in 
sports, probably in honor of the image 
(Theoph., Calvin), after the festival; 
dancing (not necessarily ‘lasciva sal- 
tatio,’ Bengel) forming, as we know it 
did in this case (Ex. xxxii. 19), a 


Cuap. X. 7-9. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


189 


tat ExdOicev 6 dads ghayeiy Kal meiv, Kal avéotnoay trai€ew. 


8 undé topvevowev, Kabws Ties avT@Y éTopvevoay, Kal éTrecaV 


Lal (~ f ” al 4: 
wid uépa elkoou TpEls yudddes. 


9 \ > / \ 
pndée éxrreipafmpev Tov 


8. @recav] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly pre- 


ponderating authority: Rec., Rev., érecov. 


The omission of the ev before mwé 


nuepa is adopted in all the above mentioned edd., on clearly preponderating 


authority: Rec. év mid juepa. 


prominent part. There is no reason 
for thinking that it here includes any 
reference to the sin specified in the 
following verse (comp. Wordsworth). 
That maifew may have that meaning 
depends on the context; neither matew 
nor PMx necessarily involves it. All 
that is here implied is probably what is 
expressed by Chrys. (Cramer, Caz.) ; 
Xopods oThoavtes Tep) Toy udaxov, emaiCov 
XopevovTes Eumpoabev avrov. 

8. pdt tropvedwpev] ‘either let us 
commit fornication ;’ a second form of 
émibuula kakav, often found in connection 
with idolatry, but, as the Epistle 
implies (comp. ch. v. I sqq., vi. 13 
sqq:), and ancient history plainly 
specifies (comp. Strabo, Geogr. VIII. 6. 
20), long connected with the city of 
Corinth. Bengel calls attention to the 
change of person. In verses 7 and 10 
the second person is adopted; in the 
first case, the nature of the sin specified 
seems to preclude the Apostle, even 
under the form of epistolary comity, 
there grouping himself with those 
whom he was addressing ; in the second 
case, he is condemning a sin which 
seems to have clung to the Church of 
Corinth (comp. Clem.-Rom. Cor. cap. 
3), and probably showed itself in ref- 
erence to himself. In each case there 
is an instinctive propriety which led to 
the almost unconsciously made change: 
“utrumque decore,’ Bengel. elkoot 
tpeis] The number specified in the Old 
Testament (and so also in Philo, Jose- 
phus, and Rabbinical writers) ‘ of those 
that died in the plague’ was 24,000 


(Num. xxv. 9). The slight discrepancy 
has been accounted for in various ways, 
all more or less artificial,— some inter- 
preters pressing the wid juépa as con- 
trasted with the total duration of the 
plague, others supposing that the exact 
number (as known by tradition) was 
really midway between the two round 
numbers, and that in the O. T. the 
higher, and by St. Paul the lower, 
round number was used. Common 
sense seems to suggest, that the 
Apostle was citing from memory, and, 
as the exact number was of no moment, 
did not deem it necessary to refer to 
the original narrative. 

9. pnSe exrepdfopev tov Kiuprov] 
‘neither let us tempt the Lord ;’ scil. 
God, as evinced by the passage subse- 
quently referred to, Num. xxi. 4 sqq.; 
comp. Ps. Ixxviii. 18,19. The stronger 
form éxmepd(ew (in classical Greek 
éxmeipac0u) is found in three other 
passages in the N.T., Matt. iv. 7, Luke 
iv. 12 (from Deut. vi. 16), and Luke x. 
25, in all of which the preposition ap- 
pears to add emphasis and to mark 
the determined nature of the act. The 
meaning here and in Matt. iv. 7 and 
iv. 12 is rightly expressed by Grimm 
(Zex. s.v.) as ‘patientiam vel ultricem 
potestatem explorare.’ It was a sin of 
mingled unbelief, impatience, and pre- 
sumptuousness, emanating from the 
evil heart of man; ééemelpacay tov Ocdy 
év tats Kkapdias avt@v, Ps. Ixxvii. 18 
(LXX); comp. Mark vii. 21. What 
peculiar manifestation of the sin is 
here in the Apostle’s thoughts has 


190 1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. X. 9, 10. 


Ko 6 / > Lal b] / \ e x a ” 
uplol', KAU@S TLWES AUTWY ETTELPATAV, KAL VTO THY odpewp 


> OAR 10 de f. ia) / > Led », / 
aT@NAUYTO. pode yoyyutete, Kalarrep TWes avT@y eyoyyvaar, 


9. Ktpiov] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort. on clearly pre- 
ponderating authority: Rec., Xpuotdv. The same edd. omit kal before rwes, on 
authority still more preponderant. Some slight doubt might be felt in regard 
of &médduvto ( Zisch., Treg., Rev., Westc.and Hort); but as the external authority 
is good, and as it would be far less likely to a correction of &méAovTo (Rec., 
Lachm.) than vice versd, the less usual amréAAvyTo is to be preferred. 

10. KaOdrep] So Tisch. Treg., Rev. Westc. and Hort, on strong internal as 
well as good external evidence, the tendency to correct by conforming to the 
xa0és in the five preceding verses being obviously great: ka0aés, Lachm., Rec. 
The omission of «ai before twes is adopted by Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., 


Westc. and Hort, on vastly preponderating authority. 


been variously stated both by earlier 
and later commentators. It seems, 
however, natural to think that he is 
including all forms of sin prevalent at 
Corinth that might be deemed more 
especially to involve presumptuousness 
and wearying out of God’s patience 
(comp. especially Isa. vii. 13, where 
‘wearying God’ stands in connection 
with tempting Him;’ ‘est enim ten- 
tatio patientiz contraria,’ Calvin), and 
that he is not pointing to any particular 
form of the sin. If we are to draw 
our inference solely from the ka@éds 
«.7.A., then the sin would seem to be 
a longing for thesensual gratifications 
of their old heathen life, and a desire 
to shake off the restraints of Chris- 
tianity. To regard the sin as pointing 
toa desire for signs (dt: wep) onuctwy 
éudxovro, Chrys.), or presumptuous use 
of the gift of tongues (Theodoret), 
seems in no degree hinted at in the 
context. éemre(pacrav] ‘ tempted ;’ 
absolutely; so Vulg., Syr., Copt., Arm. ; 
see Winer, Gr. § 22.1. A®th., Meyer, 
De Wette, al., supply a’rdy. The word 
clearly can be used absolutely, as is 
shown by the term 6 7reipd(wv, Matt. iv. 
5, I Thess. iii. 5, and by instances such 
as Hom. Odyss. 1X. 281, &s pdto meipd- 
(wv, ewe © ob AdOev ciddra moAAd. 

The reading éfemeloacay (Zisch., Lach- 


mann; Westc. and Hort in margin) 
has good external support, but strong 
internal evidence against it. 

trd tov Shewv araddvTO] ‘perished 
by the serpents ;’ scil. those mentioned 
in the well-known narrative, Num. xxi. 
6. The imperfect marks the past event 
in its then course and accomplishment, 
and, as it were, brings the scene more 
fully before us; see Kiihner, Gr. § 
383. 2, Donalds. Gr. § 426. aa. On the 
use of tmé with neuter verbs of which 
the meaning can receive a passive turn 
(wdoxew, Matt. xvii. 12, 1 Thess. ii. 14, 
mAnyas AauBdvew, 2 Cor. xi. 24), see 
Winer, Gr. § 47. s. v. td. The power 
which produces death is regarded as’ 
actively efficient. 

10. pnde yoyyilere] ‘ zetther mur- 
muy ;’ manifest a froward and dis- 
contented spirit, commonly with an 
associated prepositional clause (ard, 
Matt. xx. 11, mpds, Luke v. 30, 7epl, 
John vi. 41, 61, vii. 32) marking against 
whom the vyoyyvouds was directed. 
Here, as the reference to the O. T. is 
clearly to Num. xvi. 41 (no violent 
death being associated with any other 
instance of murmuring), the object of 
the yoyyvouds would seem to be, per- 
haps in the first place, St. Paul and 
those associated with him (see notes 
on ver. 8), just as Moses and Aaron 





Cuap. X. 10, II. 1 CORINTHIANS. 


191 


Kal am@dovtTo vTrd Tod dNOOpevTOD. Tadta Sé TUTUKaS cUVE- 


> / > / \ X\ / ¢ n >] A x v2 
Bawev éxeivous, éypadn Sé mpos vovGeciay tudv, eis ods TA TEAN 


II. taita dé] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on good ex- 
ternal authority. Internal considerations are also of weight, the addition of 
mdvra (Rec.) being so much more easily accounted for than its omission. In 
what follows, rum:x@s is adopted in the edd. above specified for rdmoz (Rec.), on 
very clearly preponderating authority. There is more doubt about ovveBawev 
(Zisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort), as it may have been a grammatical correction 
of the plural ovvéBawov (Lachm., Rev., Rec.). On the other hand, the plural 
may have been a conformation to vs. 6. The external authority preponderates 


in favor of the singular. 


Lastly, for natrhyrnnev (Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., 


Westc. and Hort), the evidence is clearly preponderant: Rec., kathyTncer. 


are the objects in Num. /.c.,— but 
also, as the word is studiedly left ab- 
solute, with a further and deeper ref- 
erence to Him whose servants Paul 
and his associates really were —to 
God: comp. ver. 22, Ex. xvi. 7, and 
see notes oz Pil. ii. 14, where this 
word is briefly discussed. td 
Tov ddoOpevtod] ‘by the destroyer ;’ scil. 
the destroying angel, definitely men- 
tioned in 2 Sam. xxiv. 16, 1 Chron. 
xxi. 15, and named generally as 6 éAo- 
Opetwy, Ex. xii. 23, Heb. xi. 28. The 
form éAo8pedw is Alexandrian, and is 
of not uncommon occurrence in later 
writers of that class: comp. Steph. 
Thesaur. s.v., Schleusner, Lex. Vet. 
Test. 8. Vv. 

{1. Tatra 8 «.1.d.] ‘ow these things 
happened unto them by way of figure ;’ 
these events specified in the five pre- 
ceding verses. The earlier events in 
the history of God’s people had a 
typical character in relation to the 
historical circumstances of Christian- 
ity; év éxelvois yap Ta huctepa ouveypd- 
geto, Theod. See especially Martensen, 
Chr. Dogm. § 123. p. 233 (Transl.). 
The imperfect cvvéBawey marks the 
sequence of the events in the unfolding 
of the history: see notes on ver. 9. 
éypadn 8] ‘and they were written ;’ 
the 5é, in accordance with its common 
use in Greek, adding, with a faint sub- 


antithetical force, a new statement to 
what had preceded; not only did they 
take place, but they were also recorded: 
see Klotz, Devar. Vol. Il. p. 361, and 
comp. notes oz Gal. ii. 20. 

mpds vovder (av tov] ‘for the admoni- 
tion of us; ‘ad commonendos nos,’ 
Tertull. (4Zarc. v.7). The events were 
recorded with the general purpose (the 
mpds marking ‘ethical direction to- 
wards;’ see notes on Col. iv. Bon 
supplying monitory teaching to us 
Christians, by reminding us, first, how 
the relations of Israel to the world at 
large do truly prefigure the present 
attitude of Christianity, and so were 
recorded for our learning (see Hof- 
mann 77 /oc.); and, further and in 
detail, how each sin was followed by 
its chastisement, and that, as it was 
then, so will it ever be: ‘ut iis lectis 
vel auditis sapiamus, ne similiter pec- 
cantes similia patiamur,’ Estius. On 
the later form vov@eota (for vovdérn- 
ots), see references in notes oz Eph. 
vi. 4. ‘els ots Ta TéAN K.T.A,] 
‘unto whom the ends of the ages are 
come down’ (‘devenerunt,’ Vulg.) ; and 
to whom, consequently, the admonition 
comes with increased force ; comp. ch. 
Vii. 9: KaA@s 5€ kal Tod ai@vos Td TéAos 
mpoor éBeixer, erelywv adrovs Kat Beyelpwv 
mpos épyactay tis apetjs, Theodoret. 
The expression T& TéAn TY aidvwy does 


192 


TOV AlwvOV KATHVTNKEDV. 
>, f 
fn) Téon. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


CHAP. X. 11-13. 


12" Qote 6 doxav éotavar, BreTréT@ 


13 \ Ld X > tr > \ > Q / 
TELPATHLOS VUasS OUK elANhevy eb pn avUpwrwwos: 


x Y c f a > ed ig wn ip] € \ a 
muaTos 6€ 0 Oeds, bs ovK édoe twas TetpacOjvar iép 6 


not practically differ from 7 ouvTéAca 
Tav aidvwy, Heb. ix. 26,—both pas- 
sages implying that the precursory 
ai@ves had well nigh passed away (comp. 
1 John ii. 18), and that the aiay 6 épxé- 
pevos (Mark x. 30) was at hand, — but, 
by the use of the plural (r& 7éAn), it 
marks, a little more distinctly, the idea 
of each age of preparation having 
passed into the age that succeeded it, 
so that now, as it were, all the réAn 
had come down to them, and the new 
aidy was very near: épeotnke Aouwdy Td 
dixacthpioy Td poBepdy, Chrys. 

12. "Qere «.7.d.] ‘So then,’ or * Con- 
sequently, he that thinketh he standeth ;’ 
inferential exhortation, flowing from 
the preceding statement and warnings: 
KaA@s cimev, 6 ‘Sox@v éotdvat.’ Todto 
yap ovdé éatdvat eotiv, as Eotdvat xph, 
On the modi- 
fication of the normal meaning of éarTe 
(‘consecutio alicujus rei ex anteceden- 
tibus,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. Il. p. 771, 
Wilke, Pet. § 81, p. 265), and its cor- 
rect rendering in sentences like the 
present (not ‘ proinde,’ Calvin, but ‘ ita- 
que,’ Vulg.; ‘wherefore,’ Auth., is a 
little too strongly ratiocinative; con- 
trast didmep k.7.A., ver. 14), see notes 
on Phil. ii. 12, where the use of the 
particle (with an imperative) is fully 
discussed. In all such cases there is a 
certain rhetorical suddenness which 
appropriately changes what might have 
been expressed by some dependent 
clause into an independent, yet still 
inferential, exhortation: comp. Kiihner, 
G7. *§. 586. 5. 2. Breréro pi) 
téon] ‘let him take heed lest he fail ;’ 
not, from the conviction ‘Deum nun- 
quam sibi defuturum,’ Calvin, but 
simply with reference to, and in con- 


7d Oappeiv Eavtg, Chrys. 


trast with, the preceding éordva:: he 
that thinks he is standing morally and 
firmly (whether in regard of the way 
of dealing with the question of eidwad- 
@ura, or any other great matter), let 
him beware lest he morally fall: ebxephs 
ef amovolas 7 mT@ots, Theoph. The ex- 
hortation is general, but, as Estius and 
Hofmann correctly remark, the thought 
of the particular case of eating things 
offered to idols is clearly present in 
the Apostle’s mind, and subsequently 
emerges, not only in a direct admoni- 
tion (ver. 14, but in a carefully rea- 
soned paragraph: ‘ad hoc. [ch. vii. 2 
sq-] nunc a digressione revertitur,’ 
Estius. 

13. Tetpacpos dyads K.7.A.] ‘720 cempta- 
tion has taken you but such as cometh 
on maz ;’” ‘tentatio... nisi humana,’ 
Vulg., scil., ‘hhomini superabilis,’ Beng., 
such as man can bear,’ Rev. : appended 
reassurance, to remove any undue dis- 
couragement which the special warn- 
ing against self-confidence (6 Soxdv 
éordvat, ver. 12) might bear to the 
general hearer or reader. The tempta- 
tion was simply av@pémvos, — not ‘from 
man,’ Aith., comp. Arm., but such as 
appertains to, and is generally incident 
to man, and so, in effect,.commensurate 
with man’s powers ; ovuuerpos TH picet, 
Theodoret, avOpwmivws, averta@s, Pollux, 
Onomast. III. cap. 27), It is of course 
possible, while retaining this meaning, 
to understand the clause in a totally 
contrary sense, and as carrying on the 
warning of the foregoing verse, — 
‘hitherto the temptation has only been 
avOpémvos, but it will soon assume a 
much worse form’; so the Greek ex- 
positors and many modern interpreters. 
Such a view, however, does not seem 


oF 


Cuap. X. 13, 14. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


193 


Svvacbe, adAXA ToInces oY TO TELipacuUa@ Kal TV EKB D 
. n ( pacue Kal thy éExBacw, Tod 


dvvacba wrreveyKetv. 


13. Tod divacbat] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very 
greatly preponderating authority: Rec. adds tuas 


to harmonize with the use of the per- 
fect efAnpev, which implies a continu- 
ance of a former state (‘per effectus 
suos durat,’ Poppo; see notes oz Eph. 
ii. 8), and would have almost certainly 
necessitated the use of ovmw rather 
than ov«; contrast Heb. xii. 4, odrw 
méexpis aluaros GvtikaréoTyTe. 

motos 8 6 Oeds] ‘yea, God is faith- 
ful ;’ the 3é having here not its ordi- 
nary oppositive force, but carrying on 
the reassurance, and adding (‘quasi 
per oppositionem quandam,’ Herm.) 
the further and deeply consolatory 
thought that God would ever remain 
true to His promises: ‘/de/7s est Deus 
in prestanda ope, quam et verbum 
ejus et pristina opera follicentur,’ 
Bengel; see 1 Thess. v. 23, and notes 
in loc. ; comp. 2 Thess. iii. 3. 

és otX K.t.A] ‘who will not suffer you 
to be tempted above that which ye are 
able (to bear) ;’ the 6s having its ex- 
planatory, and slightly confirmatory 
force, ‘seeing that he will not, etc. ;’ 
see notes o7 Co/.i. 18,25 and oz 1 Tim. 
ii. 4. This usage often comes out 
very distinctly after a foregoing ques- 
tion; see Kiihner, Gr. § 561. 2. a. 
GAAG Toujoes K.T.A.] ‘but with the 
temptation will make also the way to 
escape. God is throughout the actor: 
He permits the temptation, but so 
moderates its force as a/so to provide 
in each case the escape, —not ‘ eva- 
dendi facultatem,’ Cyprian, but the 
means and pathway of escape, ‘egres- 
sum,’ Steph.; comp. Eur. ded. 271, 
KovK totw &rns evmpdcooros exBaors. 
The manner in which God delivers us 
from temptation is fully discussed by 
South, Serm. vi. Vol. 111. p. 82 sqq. 


25 


(Lond. 1843). rod Sivacbar 
breveyketv] ‘so that ye may be able to 
bear it ;’ genitival infinitive of the pur- 
pose; see Winer, Gr. § 44. 6, and 
notes oz Gal. iii. 10, where this usage 
is fully discussed. God in each case 
provides the escape with the merciful 
design that we may be able to bear 
that which otherwise would have been 
ovk avOpHmwoy, and above our human- 
ity. Origen (de Princip. II. 24) calls 
attention to the dvvac@a: as implying 
that God does not give the treveyreiy, 
but the ddvac@a bmeveyxetvy, —a remark 
to which Estius takes exception, but 
not with sufficient reason. What Ori- 
gen goes on to say is surely quite cor- 
rect: ‘ed autem virtute quz nobis 
data est ut vincere possimus, secundum 
liberi arbitrii facultatem aut industrie 
utimur, et vincimus, aut segniter, et 
superamur.’ That his teaching on the 
will and on liberty was not at all 
clearly thought out, may be fully ad- 
mitted (see especially Denis, Phzlos- 
ophie d’Origéne, p. 249 sqq., Paris, 
1884), but does not here seem open to 
exception. On the divinely appointed 
probation arising from temptations, 
see Harless, Chr. Eth. § 28, p. 248 
(Transl.), and comp. the remarks of 
Rothe, Zheol. Eth. § 745. 2, Vol. II. 
p- 300 (ed. 2). 


14-22. The serious bearing of the 
Lora’s Supper on the question now under 
consideration, viz. of eating meats offered 
to idols or taking part in their feasts. 

14. Avérep] ‘ Wherefore, On which 
account;’ naturally consequent warn- 
ing: ‘seeing that things are so, that 
temptations are all around you, and 


194 


The Lord’s Supper sup- 
plies illustration and 
warning. ‘To partake 
of itand of things of- 
fered to idols, is profanation. 


that in every case God mercifully pro- 
vides an &xBaots, avail yourselves of it, 
and flee from idolatry.’ The relatival 
particle, especially if taken as intro- 
ducing a new paragraph, seems to point 
back not merely to the verse just pre- 
ceding, whether to its former (Meyer), 
or to its latter portion (Hofmann), but 
to the general tenor of the foregoing 
verses, especially ver. 11-13: d6p&s 87 
TdyTA Mpogeipnucva avTg TovTov eveka 
kateckevatero, Severian. It is quite 
possible to regard the verse as closing 
the former paragraph (comp. ch. viii. 
13); in which case the connection 
would seem to be more immediately 
with the preceding verse: the ayarnrol 
pov, however (Oepamever Aoumdv, adeApovs 
[ayarnrovs] avrovs kaA@y, Theoph.), and 
perhaps also the imperative (contrast 
ch. viii. 13), seem to decide in favor 
of the present arrangement. On didmep, 
see notes onch. viii. 13. 

gevyere Grd tis eldwr.] ‘fee from 
idelatry ;” ‘avoid all contact with it:’ 
the danger was near and pressing. 
Alford and others draw a distinction 
between this expression and g¢ed-yew 
with the accusative (ch. vi. 18, 1 Tim. 
Vin) C1, 2) Lim. i. 22); but it seems 
difficult to show that this is a stronger 
form or appreciably different in sense. 
It is the more usual form in the 
N.T.: getyew é« occurs once (Acts 
Xxvii. 30), in connection with mAotop, 
the usual distinction in meaning be- 
tween the prepositions being correctly 
observed. 

15. as hpovipous Aéyw] ‘7 speak as to 
wise men, to men of good sense,’ ‘a des 
hommes sensés,’ Reuss,—‘ quibus pauca 
verba, de hoc arcano, sufficiunt ad judi- 
candum,’ Bengel: the @s marking the 
aspects under which he was regarding 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. X. 14-16. 


14 A “ 2 / v i. XN iol 
LoTEp, ayamnTol mov, hevyeTe aTro THs 
elowdoAaTpelas. 


Bas dpovimos eyo: Kpl- 


them,—that which he was presup- 
posing them to be; comp. ch. iii. 1, és 
mvevuatikors, and see notes zz Joc. On 
this use of as, see notes oz EPh. v. 22, 
and ox Col. iii. 23, and comp. Bernhardy, 
Synt. vii. 1, Pp. 333, Kithner, Gr. § 
Sor. 5. Kplvate bpeis 8 yt] 
‘judge ye yourselves what I say ;’ the 
emphatic due’s implying that the 
Apostle was quite willing to leave it to 
their own judgment ; ‘vobis relinquo 
judicandum,’ Bengel. Between the 
gnut here and the Aéyw in the preceding 
clause (comp. Rom. iii. 8), it is not 
perhaps easy to draw any distinction 
beyond this general one,— that Aéyw 
(as its derivation suggests, Donalds. 
Crat. § 453) points to orderly discourse, 
gnut (from a Sanscr. root d/4, ex- 
pressive both of ‘speech’ and ‘ light’), 
to making plain and clear (declaring) 
what was in the mind of the speaker. 
The remaining word Aad®@ points to 
sound and utterance (Trench, Syzoz, § 
76), and though widely different in re- 
gard of derivation, approximates to our 
word ‘talk.’ On the Lithuanian origin 
of this last-mentioned word, see Skeat, 
Etym. Dict. s. v. p. 622. 

16. Td mrortpiov tis evAoylas] ‘the 
cup of the blessing, scil. over which the 
blessing 1s pronounced, the genitive 
THs evdoylas being the gen., not of 
‘quality’ (Meyer), but of ‘remoter ref- 
erence’ (Winer, Gy. § 30. 2. 8), and the 
expression receiving its full elucidation 
from the clause that follows. The 
governing words 7d rorfpioy are in the 
accusative, and bya kind of inverted 
attraction are regarded as in the same 
regimen with the relative; see Winer, 
Gr.§ 24. 2.@. The Apostle now pro- 
ceeds to bring out clearly the meaning 
of his solemn warning in ver. 14. Rest- 


Cuap. X. 16. 


é “ is 
vate vueis O dnp. 


rT CORUN DT MEANS. 


195 


16 TO croTnpiov Ths evAoyias 6 evNoYyodmuED, 


See 7 b] \ a (v4 a o4 pais N ” A 
ovxl KOLW@VLA EOTLY TOV ALLATOS TOU plorou ; TOV @pPTOV OV 


16. kowwrla éorw] So Treg., Westc. and Hort: Rec. Lachm., Tisch., Rev., 


Kolvwvia rod aluatos Tov XowTod éort. 
the two readings. 


It is here very difficult to decide between 
The character of the authorities in favor of the text, coupled 


with the probability of a conformation (as to the order of the words) with the 


second clause, seem to preponderate. 


ing on the usages connected with the 
Lord’s Supper and the Jewish customs 
in regard of the eating of the offerings 
(ver. 18), he shows convincingly that 
the eating of ef8wAd@ura, permissible as 
the illuminated Corinthian might think 
it, really involved a communion with 
devils. On the ‘cup of blessing’ in its 
connection with the ceremonies of the 
Passover feast, see Lightfoot oz Matt. 
xxvi. 27, but observe that the term rd 
moThpiov Tis evAoylas is not a term 
merely derived from the terminology 
of the Passover, but, as the explanatory 
® evAoyoduey seems clearly to indicate, 
is here used by the Apostle in reference 
to Christian consecration : see hereon, 
Martensen, Chr. Dogm. § 266, p. 438 
(Transl.), and comp. Rickert, Adend- 
mahl, § 17, p. 219 sq. Whether the 
mothpioy mentioned in Matt. /.c. is to 
be understood as referring to the ¢hzrd 
or the fourth Passover cup is very 
doubtful. In favor of the latter view 
(opp. to Lightfoot), see Meyer zz 
loc. & eddoyotpev] ‘which we 
bless, 7... aS the nature of the subject 
implies, consecrate by eucharistic prayer 
and blessing: comp. Mark viii. 7, Luke 
ix. 16. The plural cannot safely be 
pressed, as implying that this was the 
act of each participant. It simply 
points to those who customarily per- 
formed the act, the reference to the 
Holy Communion not being here, as 
in ch. xi. 23, ritually descriptive, but 
referred to only so far as was neces- 
sary for the general argument: comp. 
Riickert, Adendmahl, § 17, p. 225, 


note. ovxl Kowevla éoriv k.T.A.] 
‘7s zt not a communion of the blood of 
Christ?’ Is not a communion with 
the blood of Christ imparted by it, 
and, as it were, conveyed by it? No 
cup, no ckowwvia: ‘innuitur summa re- 
alitas,’ Bengel. The éorvi thus retains 
its ordinary and proper meaning: the 
consecrated cup does not merely sig- 
nify a kowwvia, but 7s the bearer of it; 
the expression being concise, but per- 
fectly intelligible. What the precise 
nature of the kowwvia is, cannot be 
determined from this passage, but can 
only be inferred from the carefully 
considered tenor of the different por- 
tions of Scripture which refer to this 
momentous subject. It seems here 
sufficient to say that the verity of 
Scripture seems to preclude our refer- 
ring the kowwvia to any other body 
than that which suffered on the cross, 
or to any other blood than was then 
shed for us. But (independently of 
other considerations) as at the first 
Communion, which we are bound to 
believe was a true Communion, the 
body was not yet crucified, nor the 
blood yet poured out, it is obvious that 
this participation of the faithful in the 
body and blood of our Lord becomes 
at once lifted out of the realm of the 
natural and the material, and must be 
regarded as a spiritual participation, 
and because spiritual, the more deeply 
and essentially ~ea/ : comp. Waterland, 
Doctrine of Eucharist, ch. vu., and (on 
the ‘unio sacramentalis’), the lucid 
comments of Dorner, Chr. Doctr. § 


196 


rCORINTHIANS: 


Cuap. X. 16, 17. 


XO > \ / lal / Lal D4 Lal > 17 e 
KAW LEV, ouxe KOLV@VLA TOU DWLATOS TOU PLTTOU EOTLV 5; OTt 


” aA ~ e / > ° nf / > me ®t 
els diptos, &v c@pwa oi ToAXNOL eopev* oi yap TavTEs ex TOD EvoS 


145. 3, Vol. Iv. p. 326 sqq. (Transl.). 
bv KAopev] ‘which we break,’ scil. at 
the celebration of the Holy Com- 
munion; comp. Acts xx. II, KAdoas 
Tov %ptov [Rec. erroneously omits rév]. 
The Apostle does not repeat the men- 
tion of the regularly accompanying 
evAoyia, as it would be sufficiently clear 
from the foregoing clause that the 
reference is to the Holy Communion, 
and so to the consecrated bread as well 
as to the consecrated wine. The bread 
is similarly the kowwvia of the Lord’s 
body: ‘ His presence is with the bread, 
though not 77 it,’ Bp. Patrick, AZensa 
Mystica, 1. § (Works, Vol. I. p. 151, 
Oxford, 1858). On the whole subject 
the student may be profitably referred 
to the clear treatise of Waterland 
above referred to, and for a very thor- 
ough statement of the difficulties con- 
nected with this profound subject, 
Dorner, Chr. Doctr. Vol. IV. p. 306-333. 
The views entertained in the early 
Church will be found in Waterland, 
and, very fully, in Ebrard, Adendmahl, 
2 Vols. 1845, Kahnis, Adendmahl, 1851, 
and Riicker:, Adendmahl, 1856: see 
also generally the articles in Herzog, 
Real-Encyclopadie, Vol. 1. p. 28-47 
(2d ed. 1877). The views of our own 
leading divines are clearly stated by 
Canon Trevor, Holy Eucharist (Lond. 
1876), and the teaching of all writers 
on the subject, from the first, by He- 
bert, Zord’s Supper (2 Vols.; Lond. 
1879). 

17. Sti els pros «.t.A.] ‘because one 
éread,— though broken into so many 
parts, so one body are we the many:’ 
so apparently, Vulg., ‘quoniam unus 
panis, unum corpus multi sumus,’ and, 
still more distinctly, Syr., ‘as then one 
is that bread, so are we one body,’ 
and similarly Aith.; so too apparently 


Theod., and the Greek expositors. This 
difficult clause may be taken in three 
ways: (az) as substantiating the inter- 
rogatively expressed statement of the 
preceding verse,—‘ for one bread is 
there, one body are we the many,’ i.e. 
‘for as there is one bread in the Lord’s 
Supper, so we Christians, though we 
are many, form one body,—a result 
which could only come from the fact 
that the bread was the kowwvrla of the 
body of Christ.’ So Meyer, De Wette, 
and others. This, however, is a rea- 
soning ‘ab effectu ad causam,’ which, 
as Meyer admits, involves a filling up 
of an asyndeton, and, it may be added, 
a logical padding that, in a passage of 
this nature, where the Apostle ob- 
viously desires to speak out emphati- 
cally and trenchantly (kpivare iuets 6 
nut, ver. 15), seems singularly out of 
place. We may (4) supply éoueér after 
&pros, regarding it as a sort of explana- 
tory clause, ‘seeing that we who are 
many are one bread, one body, Rev., 
similarly Auth., and so apparently the 
Coptic and Armenian versions. To 
this, however, the objection seems 
fatal, that in the same verse we must 
take &pros in practically two different 
meanings. We therefore (c) fall back 
on the view first specified in this note, 
according to which the verse is to be 
regarded as adding, without any con- 
necting particle, a further statement of 
considerable moment for the general 
argument of the paragraph: comp. 
Martensen, Cir. Eth. § 84, Part 11. p. 
191 (Transl.). “Ov: thus, with its full 
causal meaning, introduces the protasis 
in the sentence, vy o@ua x.7.A. forming 
the apodosis, and the whole becomes 
an éyylrepdv tt (Chrys.), or a 7d wetov 
(Theoph.) to the interrogative state- 
ment which has just preceded: so 


Cuap. X. 17, 18. 


GipTou peTeyouen. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


197 


18 Brerete Tov “IopaidX kata capKa* ovy 


Ce \ @ / MN la) 6 / ? 19 f 
ou éoQuovtes Tas vaolas KOLY@VOL TOU USLACTHPLOV €lot ; Tb 


18. obx] So Lachm., Tisch., Westc. and Hort (with margin), on clearly 


preponderant authority: Rec., Treg., Rev., odxt. 


in verse 16 is also not improbable. 


Beza, Bengel, Hofmann, and others. 
The obvious difficulty is the absence 
of an ody (Syr., as will have been no- 
ticed, actually inserts it) or of some 
connecting particle. This absence 
may, however, in a great degree be 
accounted for by the sharp, emphatic, 
and indeed independent, character of 
each verse in this paragraph. 

ot yap mavres k.T.A.] ‘for we all have 
our share from the one bread ;’ confir- 
mation of the inference drawn in the 
foregoing clause; the fact that we all 
partake of that one bread is the con- 
stitutive principle of our corporate one- 
ness; if we did not thus partake, the 
inference would not be correct. The 
expression is unusual, as petéxew is 
elsewhere used either with an imme- 
diately dependent genitive (ver. 21, ch. 
ieatee PLeO. Il TAs Vv. 13>) Val. 13);) OF 
absolutely, the genitive being supplied 
in thought from the context (ver. 30, 
ch. ix. 10), but never, as here, with an 
associated preposition. The true con- 
struction then probably is, that weréxew 
here has its dependent genitive left un- 
expressed (‘partake of what we par- 
take’) and that the é« tod évds &prov 
points to that from which or out of 
which what was partaken of was de- 
rived. Theidea of the oneness of the 
element is thus a little more distinctly 
marked. Onthe omission of the object 
after the verb, see examples in Buttm. 
4. T. Gr. p. 138, and comp. Kiihner, 
Gr. § 597. 2.6. The distinction drawn 
by Wordsw. between ueréxew (sharing 
with those who also have their shares), 
and kowwvety (partaking with others in 
ome undivided thing), cannot be sub- 


A conformation to the ovxt 


stantiated. Both words are used in the 
Eccl. writers in reference to the par- 
taking of the Lord’s Supper; see 
Suicer, Zhesaur. Vol. I. p. 126, 363. 
All that can properly be said is that 
xowwveiy implies more distinctly the 
idea of a community with others: see 
Cremer, 47b/.- Theol. Worterb. p. 363. 
18. Bdérere Tov “Iopaid k.7.d.] ‘ de- 
hold Israel after the flesh ;” i.e. ‘con- 
sider, as a second illustration, the case 
of Israel after the flesh.’ The closely 
appended kat& odpka is designed to 
divest the illustration of any spiritual 
significance; the Apostle is referring 
simply to the nation as such, and to its 
nationally prescribed ordinances ; con- 
trast Gal. vi. 16, Toy "IopahA Tov Oecod. 
ovX ot éoPloytes Tas Ovolas] ‘are nor 
they that eat the sacrifices in communion 
with the altar ?’ ‘have not they which 
eat the sacrifices communion with the 
altar?’ Rev. The rules connected with 
this eating of the sacrifices are specified 
Lev. vii. 15 sq. On the double signifi- 
cance of this eating, in reference to the 
thank-offerings, viz. communion with 
him who gave the feast and with one 
another, and also festive joy, see Bahr, 
Mose) Gulia Liaias 35) V Olesen pe37a)Sds5 
and, in reference to this custom and its 
significance with heathen nations, 2d. 
III. I. 3, p. 234, 250. In the ex- 
pression Kotvwvol Tod buc.acrnpiov, the 
point which the Apostle presses in 
argument would seem to be this,— that 
the one who ate the sacrifices had thus 
an actual participation with the altar 
on which the sacrifices were consumed. 
The sacrifice was that which mystically 
united the worshipper and the altar to 


198 


DT CORUN El Arnis. 


CHAP. X. 18-20. 


x 
otv dnur; Ste eldwA0OvTOV Ti eat, H STL EldwrOv Ti eoTW; 


/ | lel 
GAN OTe & Ovovew Ta EOvy, Satpovios Kai ov Oe@ Ovovow 


19. eiSwAdbvtov —etdwdov] This order is maintained by ZLachm., Tisch., 
Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on greatly preponderating authority. The re- 
versed order, as found in Xec., bears every appearance of having been an early 


correction. 


which he brought his offering. Hof- 
mann urges that all the Apostle wishes 
to convey is that the eating of offerings 
implied more than being a member of 
the nation, and that what it did imply 
was a community of altar-worship. 
But this, as the subsequent reasoning 
seems to show, is clearly insufficient. 
If it is to be shown that eating eidw- 
Aé@ura carries with it communion with 
those to whom the sacrifice is offered, 
then clearly the statement on which the 
inference is based must mean that 
there was a real communion between 
the eater of the @ucias and the @vara- 
ornpov. No doubt the reasoning would 
have been more plain if @cov had been 
used instead of @vovaernpiov; but as 
this latter word carries with it, by con- 
sequence, a reference to Him whose 
altar it was (Bahr, Mos. Cult. 111. 3. 3. 
Voi. Il. p. 374), an expression (kowwvol 
Tot @cov) which would have implied 
more than could be properly maintained 
is avoided, and yet the analogy, in 
point of reasoning, between this clause 
and the second clause of ver. 20 suffi- 
ciently preserved. 

19. tl otv hyp] ‘What do TJ say 
then ?’ ‘What is the inference which I 
am leaving to be drawn from the 
reference to the elements in the Eu- 
charist, and to the sacrifices of the old 
Covenant?’ The Apostle meets a 
difficulty that might suggest itself, as 
to the inference from what he had said 
(ver. 16-18), by stating what the true 
inference really was. All that follows 
the 8 @nui (ver. 15) is naturally referred 
toin this ti od» nut which follows. 


Meyer and others refer the question to 
the clause which immediately precedes, 
but this obscures the reference just 
stated, and leaves out of sight the 
inference that might certainly seem 
capable of being drawn from ver. 16, 
viz. that the cup and the bread were 
something more than they seemed to 
be: see Bengel and Hofmann 7 doc. 
tl eo] ‘7s something, is really what 
it is claimed to be, — viz. (in the case 
of an eidwAd@uTov) an offering made to 
some being that had a real existence ; 
or (in the case of an eZéwAov) as repre- 
senting some actual personality. In 
neither case was this true: the edwad- 
@urov was mere flesh offered on an altar 
raised to a supposed divine being that 
had no real, existence; the efSwAov was 
mere wood and stone; really and truly, 
—nothing. The accentuation adopted 
by Tisch. (ch. 7), Ore cidwadOurdy te 
gorw, 7) bt efSwdAdv Tt Ecru, is plausible, 
as re-introducing the assertion of ch. 
viii. 4, but does not agree with the 
context, which clearly turns, not on 
the question of the existence or non- 
existence of eiSwAd@utoy or efdwAov, but 
on the question raised by the argument 
in ver. 16, whether the one has any 
icxds (Theod., Phot.) imparted to it, 
or the other any real personality behind 
it: see Hofmann zz Joc. 

20. GAN’ Sri .7.d.] ‘ But (what J do 
say is) that the things which the Gen- 
tiles sacrifice ;’ corrective statement of 
what it was that was really implied in 
ver. 16-18, the a@AAd@ not referring to 
any negation to be supplied after the 
preceding question (Syr., Calvin, Meyer, 


Cuap. X. 20. 1 CORINTHIANS. 199 


ov Oérw Sé ipas Kowvwvors THY Satmovioy yiverOa. 7 od divacbe 


20. In this verse it is very difficult to decide on what would appear to be 
the true reading and order of the words. On the whole the following changes 
in Rec. appear to be required by evidence. For @vee in each member of the 
verse (Rec., Rev.), which would seem to have been a grammatical correction, 
we read @vovow, with Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort, on greatly pre- 
ponderating authority. We retain ra €0vn with Rec., Treg., Rev., on prepon- 
derating authority, though omitted by Zachm., Tisch., and bracketed by Westc. 
and fort, and, lastly, we adopt on clearly preponderating authority, the order 
damoviors kal ov Oeg Pvovow with Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort: Rec, 


Rev., Samoviows Over kad ov eq. 


De Wette, al.), as there is reafly no 
negative necessarily latent in the inter- 
rogative sentence (contrast Kiihner, Gv. 
§ 535. 4), but simply supplying axother 
and that the true answer to the ques- 
tion: ‘ What doIsay?... Well, without 
entering further into the question of 
what idol-offering or idol really is, I 
say that, etc.’ The meaning is prac- 
tically the same, but the questionable 
assumption of an ellipsis of a negative 
which the preceding words do not 
grammatically involve, is rendered un- 
necessary. The Apostle drops the 
wrong answer without comment, and 
proceeds to the right one. On the 
true meaning of aAAd (‘aliud jam hoc 
esse, de quo sumus dicturi’), see Klotz, 
Devar. Vol. Il. p. 2 sq. On 
the use of the neuter substantive plural 
with the verb plural, see Winer, Gr. § 
38. 3. a. B: vn is used by St. Paul in 
the same Epistle with both the verb 
singular (Rom. ix. 30) and the verb 
plural (Rom. ii. 14, xv. 27), and ap- 
parently without any very clearly de- 
finable difference. As a rough and 
general rule, the verb is more com- 
monly found in the plural when the 
neuter plural substantive refers to ani- 
mate objects, and in the singular when 
the reference is to what is abstract 
and inanimate; see Buttm. Gr. V.7. 
p- 110, and comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 365. 

Baipoviors Kal ov Oca] ‘to demons, and 


not to God ;’ to evil spirits (as always 
in the N.T., except Acts xvii. 18, where 
the speakers are heathens ; see Cremer, 
Bibl.-Theol. Worterb. p. 170 sq.), and 
not, under any guise or form, to God 
(‘to Aloha,’ Syr., ‘Domino,’ Aith.), — 
the last clause (see Deut. xxii. 17, of 
which this seems a reminiscence) being 
added to accentuate the former, and 
to preclude the supposition that though 
the offering was made to idols, the 
worshippers were unconsciously recog- 
nizing, however dimly, the one God by 
their acts; comp. Acts xvii. 23 sq. 
No such charitable construction was to 
be put on their acts. Though not in- 
tentionally, yet really and actually, they 
were sacrificing, in accordance with 
the fixed belief of the Jewish Church 
(Deut xx, 175) PS.) Cvi. 37/5 comp: 
Ps. xcv. 5, LX X, Baruch iv. 7), and, as 
here St. Paul, speaking under the in- 
fluence of the Holy Ghost, clearly 
reveals to us, to—7Ta& mvevpaTiKa THs 
movnplas (Eph. vi. 12), to spiritual be- 
ings who formed a part of the kingdom 
of Satan. As Reuss (27 doc.) truly says, 
‘le culte idolatre, en tant que frustrant 
le vrai Dieu de Vhonneur qui lui est 
dd est un culte du diable.’ Such was the 
uniform teaching of the early Christian 
Church; see Usteri, Paul. Lehrb. p. 
401 sq., and on the subject generally, 
Dorner, Chr. Doctr. § 86. 3. Vol. 11. 
p- 105 sq. (Transl.), Martensen, Chr, 


200 


1 CORINTHIANS: 


Cuap. X. 20-22. 


/ , ‘ ‘ / > 4 
motnpiov Kupiov mriveu' Kat mornpiov Sayoviwvs ob divacbe 
tpamétns Kupiov petéyew Kat tparétns daipoviov. “1 mapa- 


Logm. § 68. p. 129 sq. (Transl.), Ros- 
koff, Gesch. des Teufels, Vol. 1. p. 
223 sq. od Oédw Bt K.7.d.] Sand 
I would not that ye should have com- 
munion with devils;’ further state- 
ment by means of the continuative yet 
slightly antithetical 5¢ (‘novum quid 
accedit,’ Herm. Viger, p. 845); after 
what he has just said, this further 
statement is almost necessarily called 
for ; wAclova péBov évri@noww,’ Theodoret. 
This statement is elucidated by the 
two negative clauses which follow. 
On the use of the article (rév daipmoviwv) 
as marking the class, especially with 
plural nouns, see Kiihner, Gv. § 461. 1. 
The Samdéua are here regarded as a 
community; in the preceding clause 
they are only alluded to generally, 
and as individuals of a class; see 
Kriiger, Sprachl. § 50. 3, where this 
generic use of the article is well dis- 
cussed. 

21. ov SdvacGe K.T.r.] ‘ye cannot 
drink the cup of the Lord and the cup 
of devils ;’ in emphatic confirmation 
of the foregoing clause, all particles 
being omitted to give a greater sharp- 
ness and force to this and the follow- 
ing amépacis; amodalveta: Aoiwdy Kah 
vouobere? Aéywy, Chrys. It was amoral 
impossibility (w@s oidy te ; Theod.) for 
them to drink of two cups marked by 
such infinitely opposed characteristics. 
The genitival relation may be slightly 
differently estimated. It may be a 
simple Zossessive genitive, or a genitive 
of inner reference of a remoter kind 
(Winer, Gr. § 30. 3), or even, as Hof- 
mann suggests, of a partially qualita- 
tive nature. The more natural view 
seems to be that it is merely a genitive 
of relation (Donalds. Gr. § 453), the 
peculiar nature of the relation being 
quite clear to the readers of the words, 


from. their knowledge of the way in 
which in each case the cup was used. 
Whether, in the second member, the 
reference was to the use of the cup in 
the temple banquets, or in sacrificial 
libations, cannot be specified with cer- 
tainty. The Corinthians, at any rate, 
very well knew what the Apostle 
meant. tpatrélyns Kuplov] ‘che 
table of the Lord ;’ with obvious ref- 
erence to the Lord’s Supper and the 
elements that were placed thereon to 
be taken and eaten by the faithful. In 
the contrasted expression the reference 
is to the festal table on which the eide- 
Ad@ura were placed for the guests that 
were assembled. There is no need for 
regarding tpdmwe(a as meaning 7T& oirla 
er avtns tiWéueva (Pollux, cited by 
Alf.; see Suicer, 7hesaur. s. v. Vol. I. 
p- 1280) : in each case it was the table 
with whatsoever was placed thereon ; 
comp. Isa. Ixv. 11 (LXX). It will be 
observed that the substantives are all 
anarthrous (though this cannot read- 
ily be expressed in translation), the 
Apostle’s reference being in each case 
perfectly wide and general: see Kih- 
ner, Gr. § 452.k. The absence of the 
article in the first member of each 
clause may be explained on the prin- 
ciple of ‘ correlation,’ viz. that as Kuptouv 
often dispenses with the article (Winer, 
Gr. § 19. 1), the governing noun will 
in such cases also be anarthrous; see 
notes oz Eph. iv. 12, v. 8, and comp. 
Green, Gr. p. 46. This explanation, 
however, can hardly be applied to the 
second clauses; we believe, therefore, 
that the absence throughout of the 
article is intentional. 

22.  wapalnrodpev tov Kipuov] ‘ or 
are we provoking the Lord to jealousy ;’ 
monitory alternative, ‘or is it that we 
are so indifferent to the principle just 


Mir,’ 


CaP. X. 22-24. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


201 


na x / st eo] T > la) » ; 
Eprovpev tov Kupiov; wn toxupotepoe avtod écpev 5 


Consider others, and 
do not hurt weak con- 
sciences, but do all to 
God’s glory. 


‘ a \ na 
24 undels TO EavToD EyTEelTw, GANA TO TOU ETEpov. 


23 TIlavra é&eotw, GAN ov TavTa oupEepe * 


’ lal 
mavta éfeoTW, GX ov TravTA oiKOdopME: 


25 TIap To 


23. mdvra (bis)] In each member mor is added in Rec., but omitted by Lachm., 
Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on greatly preponderating authority. 

24. To Tov Etepov] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very 
greatly preponderating authority: Rec. adds €xagTos. 


laid down that we are neglecting it, 
and braving the Lord’s anger?’ —the 
present having its usual and proper 
force, and marking the course which, 
in this alternative, they would be pur- 
suing; see Winer, Gr. § 41. 3. 6. The 
verb mapa(naoby (Suid. rapottvew, Zonar. 
épeOicew, Theod. mapaxvicew) is only 
used in the N.T. here and Rom. xi. 11, 
14 (LXX, Deut. xxxii. 21, of which 
this passage seems a reminiscence, 
1 Kings xiv. 22, Ecclus. xxx. 3), and 
properly implies ‘ provocation,’ — ‘ op- 
posito zmulo et rivali’ (Steph. Z/e- 
Saur. s.v.), the ‘zemulus’ and ‘rivalis’ 
being either expressed or implied in 
the context. The term Kupios, though 
in Deut. 7.c. and 1 Kings /.c. referring 
to God, is here, owing to the use in 
the preceding verse and the general 
subject-matter, to be referred to our 
Lord; see Estius 7% doc. Te) 
loxvupdtepor K.T.A.] ‘are we stronger 
than He ?’ ‘Can we brave His indig- 
nation with impunity?’ ‘admonet, 
quam periculosum sit Deum provo- 
care,’ Calvin. The interpretation of 
Hofmann according to which the term 
would rather refer to moral strength 
(‘can we regard with indifference, and 
without any jealous feeling, what He 
never can?’) seems artificial, and out 
of harmony wlth the plain, blunt tone 
of the question: eis &romwoy amdyer Tov 
Adyov, Theophylact. 


23-xi. 1. General principles, followed 
26 


by directions as to the subject-matter 
(<dol-offerings), and closing exhorta- 
tions. 23. Ildvra teow x.7.d.] 
‘All things are lawful; howbeit all 
things profit not;’ recurrence to the 
principle specified in ch. vi. 12 (where 
see notes), but with limitations sug- 
gested by the principle of consideration 
for the feelings of others; the sense 
being, as rightly expressed by Theodo- 
ret, — earl co. &v’ ty Aéyes Exew yva- 
ow Tdvta Toteivy, GAN? obrE cor ouupeper 
7) BAdmrew érépous, ode éxelvous oiko- 
Souet 7d mapa cod ywduevov,— except 
that here, as in ch. vi. 12, the oTuupepes 
is not to be limited to the imaginary 
speaker (‘utilitas est mea,’ Bengel), 
but to be understood generally. 
ov mavta oikodopet] ‘a// things edify 
not ;’ do not build up the Christian 
brotherhood, but rather, on the con- 
trary, break it up: see Rom. xiv. 19, 
20, where 7d katadvew is contrasted 
with oicoSouyn. The tenor of the present 
paragraph is closely in harmony with the 
tenor of Rom. xiv. 13-23: the two pas- 
sages form amanual of counsel as to the 
Christian’s duty to others in the matter 
of liberty in things indifferent. On this 
verse, and on the extension of our Chris- 
tian liberty, and also its limitation, see 
two good sermons by Bp. Sanderson, 
Serm X1., X11. (ad Aulam), p. 507 sqq- 
Lond. 1689). 

24. pydels Td Eaurod K.7.A.] ‘Let x0 
one seek his own but each his neighbor's 
good:’ direct precept naturally flowing 


wr 


202 


1 COURINTARTIANS: 


Cuap. X. 24-26. 


/ LY \ 
év pakéAX@ Twrovmevov éaOieTe, unoev avaxpivortes Sia THY 


cuvelonow Tod Kupiov yap 7 yh} Kal TO TANpwpa avTis. 


from the reference to the olkodouy in 
the preceding clause, and preparing 
‘he reader for the more specific instruc- 
tions of ver. 25sqq. The general sen- 
timent, in reference to what follows, is 
correctly expressed by Cicum.,— uy 
yap TovTO udvov (nrei ei Kabapa ob eobies 
ouveidnoet aA’ ei Kal Toy adeApdy gov 
apede? Td yivduevov. ‘The sentence pre- 
sents an instance of a very intelligible 
brachyology, the affirmative actos 
being mentally supplied in the second 
member from the preceding undeis: see 
Winer, Gr. § 46. 1. c, Kihner, Gr. § 
597- 2. g, Bernhardy, Syzz. p. 458. On 
the precept set forth in this verse, and 
our true relation of love to our neigh- 
bor, comp. Rothe, 7zeo/. Eth. § 147 sq., 
Vol. I. p. 520 sqq. (ed. 2). 

25. Ilav rd év paxehAw k.7.d.] ‘every- 
thing, or (according to our idiom) azzy- 
thing that 7s on sale in the meat-market, 
eat ;’ specific direction as to the special 
questions of the eating of the eidwAdéuTa. 
The term padkeddrory (4 ayopa Tay bYwr, 
Dio Cass. 61. 18) is the Latin ‘ma- 
cellum’ (from a root max-; comp. 
padxaipa, macto ; see Curtius, Gr. Ltym. 
No. 459, p- 328) in a Greek form, for 
which, in earlier Greek, we occasionally 
find the simple 7d doy (rotor); see 
Steph. Zhesaur. s. v. ad fin., and 
Pollux, Ozomast. V1. 7. 38. pn dev 
avakptvovtes] ‘asking no questions, 
making no enquiry ;’ ‘absque disquisi- 
tione,’ Syr.; ‘nihil interrogantes,’ 
Vulg.; ‘ni vaiht andhruskandans,’ 
Goth.; ‘ne examinetis,’ Aith. ; putting 
no anxious questions as to whence that 
which was offered for sale was procured: 
adeas tolvuy wveicbe, uh epwradytes etre 
eidwrAdbutdv eat, etre kal wh TOdTO yap 
Aéyet avaxpivoytes, Théodoret. 

Sia Ty cvvelByoww] ‘for conscience 
sake’ This clause may be connected 


either (z) with the whole participial 
which 
case the meaning would be, ‘avoiding 
all enquiry so as not to disturb con- 
science,’ or (4) with davaxpivovres only 
(the more natural order, however, woul 
then be wndev S14 TH ouveld. avak.), the 
meaning being, ‘without making any 
conscientiously suggested enquiry.’ 
Of these (z) is to be preferred as 
simpler and more in harmony with ver. 
27, and also as preserving in &dé the 
same shade of meaning throughout. 
The tenor of the advice in each verse 
seems to be ‘don’t enquire, and run 
the risk of disturbing your conscience 
by the answers you may receive (iva uh 
TANYH 1 ouveldncis cov, Sia TodTo ph 
avdkpive, Theoph.) ; but if you are told, 
without your having enquired, then let 
conscience have its full play, and eat 
not. So the Greek commentators 
(except Phot. ap. Cramer, Caz.), whose 
judgment in a matter of this kind 
seems to deserve considerable weight. 
To regard this ovveidnots as referring to 
the weak brother’s conscience (ver. 29), 
though maintained by SBengel. De 
Wette, al., seems almost exegetically 
impossible. No reader or hearer, 
when the simple direction came before 
him, could think of any other cuveiSyois 
being referred to than his own. In ver. 
29 the case is altered by a €repos having 
already been brought forward. The 
sum and substance of the verse is well 
expressed by Bengel, ‘szepe curiositas 
plus nocet quam simplicitas.’ On the 
meaning of cuveidnois, see notes on ch. 
viii. 10, and ov 1 Zim.i. 5; see also 
Cremer, Worterd. p. 233 sqq- 

26. tod Kuplov yap k.t.d.] ‘for the 
earth is the Lord’s and the fulness 
thereof: confirmation, from Psalm xxiv. 
1, of the direction given in the pre- 


clause mndéy dvaxpivoytes, in 


CuHap. X. 26-28. 1 CORINTALTANS* 


203 


27 ¥ aN Lal e a lal) 2 / \ IN ¢ @ fal 
el Tis Kandel twas TOV aTictwy Kai DédeTE TropeverOaL, TaV 
\ e a oJ 4 be >) , \ \ 

TO Tapatilewevov vpiv éobiere, udev avaxpivovtes Sia THY 

£ A 98 2\ bé Ca »” 5 A t 50 U 9 \ 
cuveidnow: Béav Sé tis tpiv eitrn Todto tepo0utov éotw, ji) 


26. Tov Kuptov yap] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort, on very clearly 
preponderating evidence: ec., Rev., Tod yap Kupiou. 

27. ef tis] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very clearly 
preponderating authority: Rec., ef dé rus. 

28. iepd@utov] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and. Hort, on prepon- 
derating authority: Mec. eiSwAd@vTov, with good authority, but with the high 
probability against it that this latter and more familiar word was a correction. 
The repetition in Rec., after cuveiSnow, of the words of verse 26 is rejected in 


all the above-named edd. on very greatly preponderating authority. 


ceding verse,—‘eat and enquire not, 
for if the earth and all that is therein 
be the Lord’s, the meat in the meat- 
market is His, and, being His, may be 
eaten by His servants without anxiety 
or doubtfulness ;’ way cricua Ocod addy, 
kal ovdey amdBAnTrov, meTa evXapioTias 
AauBavduevov, I Tim. iv. 4. The point 
of the confirmatory quotation is, that 
if the earth and its rAnpwpa (all things 
that it contains,—herbs, fruit, flesh, 
etc. ; see below) be God’s, there can be 
no inherent quality in anything that 
can render enquiry necessary whether 
it be such as would bring with it de- 
filement ; «i 5€ avtTod mdyta, ovdeyv aKd- 
@aprov, Chrys. It may be said (see 
Meyer) that this rather points to the 
connection of 8a thy cuvelinow simply 
with dvaxpivoyres (see above), but the 
reply seems valid, that the quotation 
does not merely confirm the last words 
of ver. 26, but its whole tenor, of which 
dia thy cuveldnow is but an appended 
and subordinated thought; see Hof- 
mann 27 Joc. 7d TAYpOpA airs] 
‘the fulness thereof ;’ that which fills it, 
and without which it would be practi- 
cally empty : comp. tAfpwpa (Qardoons), 
Psalm xcv. 11, 1 Chron. xvi. 32 (LXX). 
The word is here used in its more usual 
and common sense, zd guo resimpletur ; 
see notes oz Gal. iv. 4, Eph. i. 23, and 
the very full and clearly-written note of 


Fritzsche oz Rom. xi. 12, Vol. Il. p. 
469 sq- 

27. el tig Kael K.T.A.] ‘Lf any one of 
them that believe not inviteth you ;’ scil. 
to a banquet of a general nature (not 
a temple feast), at which, however, it 
would be quite possible that eldwAdduta 
might be on the table: ‘docet qua 
libertate et cauteld untendum sit in 
mensis privatis infidelium,’ Estius. 
kal Oddete tropever Oat] Sand ye wish to 
go there. In the verb 6éAere there is 
something more than ovre mpotpeacbau 
ovtre amotroeWacba nBovaero, 
Theophylact (see Theod., Chrys.). 
As Grotius and, in effect, Bengel, 
observe, there is a hint that they would 
be wise to keep away from such enter- 
tainments altogether; ‘non valde pro- 
bat,’ Bengel. On the meaning of 
6é\w (here with its full force, ‘vultis 
ire,’ Vulg.) see Cremer, Worterd. p. 
143, and comp. notes on chap. vii. 7. 

28. édv Sé tis bpiv elry] ‘duet zf any- 
one should say to you ;’ the more genx 
eral ei of the former verse passing here 
into the more restricted éay (‘utrum 
vere futurum sit, necne, id nescio, 
verum experientia cognoscam,’ Her- 
mann), and presenting a case of dis- 
tinctly objective possibility : see Winer, 
Gr. § 41. 2, and notes oz Gal. i. 8, 9, 
where the two particles are similarly 
used, but in a contrary order. The 


autos 


204 


1 CORINTHIANS 


Cuap. X. 28, 29. 


, ‘ Z > lal \ lA A 4 £3) 99 / 
eaOieTe bu EKELVOY TOV LNVUVOAVTA KAL TNV DUVELONCLY * OvVVEl- 


Snow € Aéyw ody! THY EavTOD GAA THY TOU éTépov: iva Ti 


difficult question of the clause is the 
person referred to by the tis. At first 
sight it would seem that, as fepd@u7ov 
(on this form, see Lobeck, Phryn. p. 
159) is a more natural expression in the 
mouth of a heathen than eidwAdéutoy, a 
fellow-guest amictwy (Chrys., 
Theoph.) is here referred to. As, how- 
ever, the 6” éxetvoy k.7.A. is so much 
more intelligible if referred to a 
Christian converted from heathenism 
(Reuss),—as the 6d will thus preserve 
the same shade of meaning through- 
out,—and as the term iepé@vroy would 
be just what would be expected from 
the mouth of one formerly a heathen 
at the table of a heathen host, it seems 
best to regard the speaker as a Chris- 
tian who gives a warning, either from 
real or assumed knowledge, to the 
Christian who is sitting beside him. 

Sv’ éxeivov Tov pyvicavta K.T.A.] ‘for 
the sake of him who gave the information 
and for conscience sake:’ scil. ‘not to 
shock the brother who made the fact 
known" (tov unvicayta ; ‘notat indicium 
rei serlum,’ Bengel; comp. Acts. xxiii. 
30, unvubcions 5é wo emBovAjjs), ‘and (to 
speak more precisely) not to wound 
conscience ;’ the last words of ver. 25 
and ver. 27,—now assuming the char- 
acter of a kind of formula,—being 
designedly repeated to make the mean- 
ing of 8? éxeivoy x.7.A. still more clear. 
On this sort of explanatory force of 
kal, see Kiihner, Gr. § 521. 2,and comp. 
notes oz Phil. iv. 12. The Apostle 
would seem studiously to have left the 
ouveldnow without any defining avdrod 
(opp. to Hofmann), that he might 
bring out, by means of ver. 29, still 
more sharply his meaning. On this 
whole passage, see Reuss iz Joc. 
(Zpitres Paul. p. 217), who has brought 
out very clearly the meaning of words 


TOY 


that have certainly been somewhat 
clouded by exposition. 

29. cvvelByaow St Aéyw] ‘conscience, 
Lsay;’ the 6€ being here simply reit- 
erative, and marking the emphatic 
repetition of the word: see Klotz. 
Devar. Vol. il. p, 361, Hartung, Partik. 
Vol. 1. p. 168, Kiihner, Gr. § 531. 4. 
In all such cases the original force of 
the particle can always be traced; see 
notes oz Phil. ii. 8. ovxl tiv 
€avTod K.T.A.] ‘ 2z0t thine own, but that 
of the other man,’—who gave the in- 
formation. The €repos (‘is quicum 
negotium est,’ Grot.) refers clearly to 
the unvicavra of the preceding verse, 
—to the Christian fellow-guest who 
warned his neighbor of the fepééutov 
that was on the table. The Apostle 
here practically illustrates the precept 
he had given in ver. 24. tva rt 
yap «.t.d.] ‘for why ts my liberty to be 
judged by another conscience?’ con- 
firmation, in an interrogative form, of 
the statement that the ouvelinois was 
not, aS in verses 25, 27, the conscience 
of the one (‘velut unum compellans e 
pluribus scientiam habentibus, ad quos | 
superiorem direxerat sermonem,’ Est.) 
to whom the above precept had been 
given, but the conscience of the other 
one who had given the warning. If it 
were his own conscience (‘ex sua per- 
sona alios docet,’ Est.), then the scruples 
of another would be depriving him of 
his own freedom, viz. to eat what was 
put before him, whether fepd@uroy or 
not, provided that it was with thanks- 
giving (ver. 30); ‘conscientia illius in- 
firma non potest meam conscientiam 
libertate privare,’ Bengel; see Reuss 
in loc. The force of the confirmatory 
question is heightened by the change 
of expression,—not ‘the conscience 
of the other,’ but something more defi- 


Cuap. X. 29-31. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


205 


yap 7 édevOepia pov Kpivetas bro GANS cuveldijcews ; * et eyo 
, a , A AEN @) 3 N 5) a 
xapiTe weTexo, TL BLachnwodpwat vTreép ov eyw EevYapLoTO ; 


30. <i 2yd] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on vastly pre- 


ponderating authority: Lec., ef 5& eyo. 


nitely alien, ‘another conscience ;’ 
&AAvos marking, as usual, a distinction 
of individuality; see notes oz Gad. i. 6. 
On the elliptical tva ti (yévnrat or yé- 
voito; comp. the Latin ‘ut quid’), see 
Winer, Gr. § 25. 1, Kiihner, Gr. § 587. 
The form occurs in five other places 
in the N. T., viz. Matt. ix. 4, Luke xiii. 
7, and three quotations from the LXX, 
Matt. xxvii. 46, Acts iv. 25, vii. 26. 

30. eb éyd Xapure peréxo] f/f 7 par- 
take thankfully ;’ further confirmation 
of the rightfulness of the Christian 
freedom on the part of the one whom 
the Apostle is now representing ; the 
éyé being emphatic (‘I on my part’), 
and the xdpitt being the modal dative 
(Winer, Gr. § 31, 7. d, Kihner, Gr. § 
425. 11, Donalds. Gr. § 456. cc), mark- 
ing the [justifying] concomitant and 
accessory of the action; comp. Kriiger, 
Sprachl. § 48.16. The difference be- 
tween this dative and the dative of the 
‘subjective cause’ (see notes on Phil. 
ii. 3) is extremely slight, and, if de- 
finable, amounts to this, —that the 
approximation to a simple adverb is 
somewhat nearer in the former case 
than the latter. It may be added that 
the exact shade of the dative will be 
modified by the meaning assigned to 
the noun; xdpis may mean ‘grace ’” 
(Rev.; so Theoph., 3a thy xdpw rot 
cov, Phot., ék xdpitos yéyovas TéAeL0s, 
and so apparently Syr., Goth.), but 
more probably here means simply 
‘thankfulness:’ so Copt., apparently 
Vulg. (‘ cum gratia’), and most modern 
expositors. The objection (Hofmann) 
that it would thus have been pera 
xdpitos, founded on 1 Tim. iv. 4, is 
wholly without point. It is the very 


form adopted (the modal dat.) which 
(with the corresponding evxapiora) 
leads to the other interpretation. 

tl Brdacdnpotpar KT.A.] ‘why am TL to 
be evil spoken of in regard of that for 
which I give thanks?’ If that was done 
which sanctified the food, what just 
ground was there for reviling the 
speaker for his use of his Christian 
liberty? On this use of the present 
(comp. ver. 29, Rom. iii. 7) in reference 
to something that is ideally contem- 
plated as just about to take place, see 
Winer, Gr. § 42. a, Kiihner, Gr. § 382. 
6, comp. Kriiger, Sprach/. § 53. I. 
The general question whether any e¢i- 
dwAdduTov ought to be eaten when it 
was positively known to be such, —a 
question which Augustine (Z/zs¢. 154) 
appears to have decided contrary to the 
tenor of this passage (see also, Aidax? 
tov ’Am., cap, 6) is elaborately discussed 
by Estius zz Zoc. What the Apostle is 
here discussing is the principle of 
Christian liberty; and that liberty is 
not to be explained away. On evxa- 
pior@, and its association with epi or 
imép, see notes on ch. i. 4. 

31. Hive otv éoOlere x.t.d.] ‘ Whether 
then ye eat or drink or do anything :’ 
concluding exhortation, founded on 
what has preceded, and gathered up, 
by means of the collective obv (Klotz, 
Devar. Vol. Il. p. 717), into a simple 
and general form of Christian counsel, 
applicable to eating, drinking, and 
acting generally. The rendering, ‘what- 
soever ye do,’ Auth. (comp. Copt., 
‘aliud opus’), is not exact, the tT 
simply being ‘anything’ (Vulg., Syr., 
Goth.), and the tr: wove?re an extension 
of that, viz. eating and drinking, which 


206 


1rCORINTHITAN Ss: 


Cuap. X. 31-33, 


31 Kite odv éo@iere elite mivete elite Te Troveite, Travta eis dd€av 


Ocod noveize. * ampookotros Kal ’Iovdaiows yiverOe kat” EXXnow 


\ a > / fal (9) fa) 33 Oe. > \ / lal > la 
Kal TH ExKANTia TOU Oeov, ” KaAVaS KaYw TaVTa TaclW apEecKo, 


32. Kal "Iovdalors yiveobe] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, 
on clearly preponderating authority: Rec., yiveoOe kat *lovdaias. 


had formed the substance of the pre- 
ceding paragraphs: ‘ generalisententia 
concludit Apostolus superiorem doc- 
trinam,’ Estius. mavra eis SdEav 
K.T.4.] ‘do all things to the glory of 
God:’ kad@s &ravta mepieAaBe, Theod- 
oret. The Apostle sums up all by 
specifying the one end and object of 
all Christian activity,—the glory of 
God: comp. ch. vi. 20, Matt. v.. 16, 
1 Pet. iv. 11, al., see Martensen, Chr. 
£th. Part 1. § 121, p. 369 (Transl.). As 
Rothe well says, all our actions should 
become a veritable divine service: see 
Theol. Eth. § 986, Vol. Iv. p. 169 (ed. 
2). Wordsw. very pertinently cites 
the wise comments of Hooker on this 
great command, the sum of which is 
expressed in the following words: ‘In 
the least thing done disobediently to- 
ward God, or offensively against the 
good of men whose benefit we ought 
to seek for as our own, we plainly 
show that we do not acknowledge God 
to be such as indeed He is, and con- 
sequently that we glorify Him not. 
This the blessed Apostle teacheth.’ 
Piel erpl atl. Xda iKn 

32. ampdoKotro. Kal “Lovdalois yi- 
verGek.t.A.] ‘give no occasion of stum- 
bling either to Jews or to Greeks or to 
the Church of God:’ further exhorta- 
tion as to conduct, suggested by the 
tenor of the whole passage, and es- 
pecially of ver. 28; comp. ch. viii. 9. 
They were to be &mpécxora, — ‘ giving 
no offence’ (‘sine offensione,’ Vulg.; 
‘non sitis offendiculum,’ Copt.); not, 
intransitively, ‘offendiculo carentes’ 
(comp. Goth.), as in Acts xxiv. 16, and 
in Phil. i. 10, where see notes. The 


form is not found in ordinary Greek. 
The three towards whom this conduct 
is to be shown are then specified, Jews, 
Greeks, and their fellow-Christians : to 
the of €w (ch. v. 12; comp. Col. iv. 12, 
1 Thess. iv. 12), and to the of %w (ch. 
v. 13) they were to be alike ampdéokora:. 

33. Kaas Kayo K.T.A.] ‘even as J also 
Please all men in all things, as he had 
already very fully specified, ch. ix. 19 
sq. He was not ‘ seeking to please’ 
(Winer, Gr. § 55. 5. 8, see contra notes 
on Gal. i. 10), but from his own point 
of view was doing so. He was doing 
all that was calculated to bring about 
that result. The accusative mdvra is 
the accusative of what is termed the 
‘quantitative’ object, and serves to 
define the measure and extent of the 
action ; see notes on ch. ix. 25, Kiihner, 
Gr. § 410. 6. 16, Madvig, Syzz. § 27, 
and on the connection of this with the 
double accusative, Winer, Gr. § 32. 
4. a. py (ytev «.t.A.] ‘20t seeking 
mine own profit, but that of the many :’ 
circumstantial participle defining the 
principles and spirit of his action; 
see Kiihner, Gr. § 389. 7. e, and comp. 
notes on ch. ii. 13, and oz Col. i. 28. 
Winer (Gr. § 55. 5. 8) appears to regard 
this as a form of the causal participle 
(‘inasmuch as I, etc.’), and regards the 
negative as due to the conception in 
the mind of the writer which the finite 
verb involves. This, however, is per- 
haps over-refinement, as uf with parti- 
ciples is the prevailing usage in the 
N.T.; see notes oz Gal. iv. 8, and ox 
1 Thess. ii. 15. The exact shade of 
meaning of participles in this sort of 
connection is always open to difference 





Cap. X. 33-XI. 2. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


207 


pn &yrav to euavtod cvpdopov, GAA TO TAY TOAKwY, iva 


scwbacw. 


Women must not pray 
or prophesy with un- 
covered heads, as men 
rightly do. 


XI. pipnrtai pov yiverOe, xabas xaya Xpictov. 
2? Exawa@ 8€é tyas tt Tavta pou péuvncbe 
\ XN La e A \ 7 
kat xabws Tapéiwxa tpiv tas Tapaddces 


33- evupopov] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort, on clearly prepon- 


derating authority: Rec., Rev., cuupépov. 


2. iuas|] Rec. adds adeAgpot: Lachm., Tisch, Treg, Rev., Westc. and Hort 
omit, on very clearly preponderating authority. 


of opinion, the varied use of the parti- 
ciple in every form of secondary predi- 
cation being one of the more marked 
characteristics of the Greek language: 
comp. Kriiger, Sprach/. § 56. 10. 1. 

twa cwlaorww] ‘22 order that they may 
be saved:’ end and aim of all the 
Apostle’s work; comp. ch. ix. 22, ba 
wdvtws Twas cécw. In modern mis- 
sionary effort this great aim may have 
been too much obscured: the glory of 
God should, beyond all doubt, be the 
motive principle of all effort (see ver. 


31), but the bringing souls out of the- 


kingdom of darkness into the kingdom 
of Christ (Col. i. 13) may mghtly be 
set forth as the very highest of mo- 
tives, no human effort tending more 
directly to the glory of Almighty God: 
comp. Estius zz Zoc. 

XL. 1. pepnral pou ylverGe] ‘ Become 
imitators of mz:’ closing exhortation, 
fully justified by the tenor of the pre- 
ceding verse, in which the highest 
principles of human action were set 
forth ; ‘nthil prescribit aliis quod non 
prior observaverit,’ Calvin. This is 
the second time in the Epistle (ch. iv. 
16) that the same exhortation has been 
given. Any shade of offence that such 
words could, by any chance, have given 
is atonce removed by the clause which 
follows. Kalas kayo Xpirrot] 
‘even as I also am of Christ ;’ the 
comparative wai serving to bring out 
the fact that he himself was an imi- 
tator, as he advised them to be,—an 


imitator of the highest of all examples. 
On this and other uses of «al, see notes 
on Phil. iv. 12. Of all that had been 
said in the last verse Christ was verily 
and indeed the apxyérurov: kal yap 6 
Xpiorbs ovx éautg fpecey, Rom. xv. 3. 
On the duty of imitating Christ and 
His followers, see a wise sermon by 
Farindon, Serm. Vol. Il. p. 205 sqq. 
(Lond. 1849), and on the duty generally 
of setting a good example, comp. 
Rothe, Theol. Eth. § 1027, Vol. tv. p. 
258 sq. (ed. 2). 


V. CENSURES ON DISORDERS IN THEIR 
CHURCH ASSEMBLIES (ch. xi. 2-34). 
2-16. That women ought not to pray 

or prophesy with uncovered heads. 

2. "Emawe 8 «.t.4.] ‘Now J praise 

you that in all things ye remember ;’ 

transition, by means of the 8€ yueraBa- 
tixév (see notes ov Gal.i. 11, iii. 8), from 
the questions which had now been an- 
swered, to certain matters connected 
with their religious service on which it 
was necessary to animadvert. Winer, 

Gr. § 53- 2. ¢) regards this verse as in 

antithetical connection with ver. I 

(‘ Yet in this exhortation I mean no 

blame ’) but with detriment to the con- 

nection of this verse with what follows, 
and also to the sort of terminating 
character of the preceding precept: 
comp. ch. iv. 16. The Apostle, with 
the thorough knowledge which he had 
of the human heart, begins with words 
of praise and conciliation: amd éyxw 


208 


KATEXETE. 


1 CORINTHIANS: 


[Cuap. XI. 2, 3. 


3 Oédrw Sé tuds eidévar St. TavTos avdpos 4 Kepary 


6 Xpiotds eau, Kepadrr S€ yuvarkos 6 avnp, KEeparyn SE TOD 


biwy &pxetat, Chrys. In this praise 
there was no irony (Lomb., Aquin.), 
and certainly no want of truth or reality 
(Theodoret); the Corinthian Church did 
remember the Apostle, and was also 
the subject of his thanksgiving to God 
(ch. i. 4), but some members of that 
church had, in various ways, lapsed 
into disorder; see Calvin zz loc. The 
mdvta is the accusative of the ‘ quanti- 
tative ’ object (see notes on ch. ix. 25), 
and is not governed by, but dependent 
on péuvyobe, the direct construction 
with the accusative (in which the idea 
seems that of ‘bearing in mind,’ or 
‘keeping in remembrance’; comp. 
Kihner, Gr. § 417. 6. 12) not being 
found in the N.T., though not un- 
commonly found in earlier Greek. 
Kal KaQas tmapéSaxa K.T.A.] ‘and main- 
tain the traditions even as I delivered 
them unto you’: expansion and prac- 
tical elucidation of the precedmg mem- 
ber, the caf adding the more distinctive 
and special (notes oz Col. iv. 12) to 
the more general pou méurvnobe; they 
remembered their Apostle, and evinced 
it by maintaining and holding fast 
(comp. Luke viii. 15, roy Ad-yor kar éxou- 
ow, I Thess. v. 21, Td Kadbdy Katéxere, 
Heb. x. 23, katéxwmev thy dpuodoylar) 
the instructions which he had left with 
them. These ‘traditions’ (see notes 
on 2 Thess. ii. 15) were instructions in 
relation to the doctrine and discipline 
which the Apostle, either orally or, 
possibly, in the letter which has not 
come down to us (see notes on ch. v. 
2), had given to his converts at Cor- 
inth. The traces of many such deeper 
mapaddéoes may be observed in this 
Epistle (comp. vi. 2), and elsewhere in 
the Apostle’s writings: see 2 Thess. 
it 1 

3. C€Xw SE dpas elSévar] ‘dat J would 


have you know :’ notwithstanding the 


general commendation, they needed a 
clearer knowledge of certain broad 
principles, upon which what might 
seem usages of slight moment would 
be found seriously to depend: mporpe- 
mbuevos paddov fh amodexduevos AEyel, 
Severian (Cramer, Caz.). In this for- 
mula (see Col. ii. 1) the Apostle seems 
to mark the real necessity he felt (‘ volo, 
apertam facit professionem animi,’ 
Bengel) to bring home to them the 
truth he was about to specify; comp. 
Cliveecunts éte TavtTds 
avipds K.t.A.] ‘that the head of every 
man ts Christ, or more exactly, Christ 
is the head (h kepadnh being the predi- 
cate, Buttmann Gram. WV. T. p. 1009, 
comp. Winer, Gr. § 18. 7) of every 
man ; not merely ‘of every Christian’ 
(Chrys., Theoph., al.), but, of every 
man (comp. Estius), of the whole 
human family (not here to mention the 
angelical world, Col. ii. 10), Christ, the 
God-man, is the Head; see Hofmann 
zz loc. The meaning of kepadf must 
not be unduly limited or unduly ex- 
tended. The general idea is that of 
supremacy or pre-eminence (comp. Eph. 
v. 23), but the particular character of 
that supremacy or pre-eminence must, 
in each case be determined by the con- 
text, and by the nature of the things 
specified. Thus, in the first member, 
the supremacy or pre-eminence is in re- 
gard of nature and of headship of the 
whole human family; in the second, in 
regard of divinely appointed order and 
authority (Gen. ii. 22, 23, iii. 16: see 
below, ver. 8, 9) ; in the third, in regard 
of priority and office,—the pre-emi- 
nence of the Father, as Bp. Pearson 
says, ‘undeniably consisting in this 
that He is God not of any other but of 
Himself, and that there is no other 


Cuap. XI. 3, 4. 


Xpictod 6 Oeos. 


3. ToD Xpiatod] So [Lachm.], Tisch., 
clearly preponderating authority: ec. omits Tod. 


tT CORENTHIANS. 


209 


4ards avijp mpocevxopuevos 1) Tpopntevov 


Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on 
In the earlier portion of the 


verse the article before Xpiords is slightly doubtful, but, on the whole, to be 


retained. 


person who is God but is God of Him,’ 
Creed, art. 1. Vol. I. p. 60 (ed. Burton) : 
see Waterland, Second Def. Vol. Il. p. 
397 sq. (Oxford, 1843). Kehadi 5é 
Tod Xpiorod 6 Oeds] ‘and the head of 
Christ is God, or more exactly, God zs 
the head of Christ ;’ the anarthrous 
Kepadn really being the predicate; see 
above. This is not said merely kar’ 
avOpwrétnta (Theod., comp. Cécum.), 
but, as specified above, in reference to 
that iSid(ovoa bmepoxh (Chrys.) which 
belongs to the First Person of the 
blessed Trinity. Estius here seems 
to feel some difficulty (‘dure sonat in 
divinis Patrem dici caput Filii’), but 
without reason: it is true biblical doc- 
trine to ascribe this headship to the 
holy mystery of the eternal generation 
of the Son, and to the blessed truth, 
‘that the Father has that essence 
[which is common to both] of Him- 
self; the Son, by communication from 
the Father’ (Pearson): see Dorner, 
Chr. Doctr. § 91, Vol. 111. p. 180 
(Clark). The nature of the climactic 
statement seems designed still more to 
justify the directions which follow: if 
the woman stood in a relation of subor- 
dination to man, and man to Christ, and 
Christ (in the sense above explained) to 
God, the ceremonial relation of the wo- 
man to God in the services of the Church 
might well be marked by some outward 
token which indicated her true position 
in regard of man; whereas, in the case 
of man, whose repadh was Christ, such 
a token, as the sequel shows, would 
violate all edratia ; see Chrys. 27 doc. 
4. Tas Gvijp K.T.r.] ‘every man pray- 
ing or prophesying ;’ temporal parti- 
27 


ciples specifying the circumstances of 
the case under consideration; comp. 
Winer, Gr. § 18. 4. obs., here more 
correct than in § 45. 3. 4, where this 
secondary predication is translated 
relatively ‘who prays or prophesies,’ — 
a distinct inaccuracy, as the participle 
without the article, whether in a secon- 
dary or a tertiary predication can never 
be rightly rendered bya relatival clause 
which would imply a participle wth 
the article; see Donalds. Gr. § 492. 
The Apostle is now proceeding to 
show the full bearing and significance 
of the climactic statements in the pre- 
ceding verse. He does not, however, 
deal with the case of the men, except 
as serving to illustrate and enhance 
what he has to say in regard of the 
women: it is probable that the men 
regularly prayed uncovered, and that 
the dratia was the imitation of this 
on the part of the women: see Bengel 
On the meaning of mpopn- 
tevwy (‘speaking under the more im- 
mediate influence of the Holy Spirit’), 
comp. notes oz Efh.iv. 11. This order 
of men (of Ta mpata pépovtes ev Tors 
Aerroupyois THs exKAnolas) is mentioned 
in avery marked manner in the newly 
found Aidax} tév *"AroordéAwy ; see the 
note of Bryennius, p. 40, and the ex- 
cursus of Dean Spence, Zeaching of 
the Apostles, p. 135 sqq- Kara 
Kepadis txov] ‘having (anything) hang- 
ing down from the head,’ scil. ‘velato 
capite,’ Vulg., ‘gahulidamma haubida,’ 
Goth., the preposition «card (with a 
genitive) having its primary meaning 
of ‘desuper,’ ‘deorsum’ (Kiihner, Gr. 
§ 433. b. 11., Winer, Gr. §'47.k.; comp. 


im loc. 


210 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. XI. 4, 5. 


Kata Keharis éxov Katacytver THY Kepadyy avTov. *® maca dé 


\ f ED , > ON a rv; 
yuvn Tpocevxouévn 1) TMpopyTevovca akatakahuTT@ TH Kepani 


\ \ ¢ ee a) Q f o \ ; rn 
KaTaloxuver THY Kepadny avTns* Ev yap EoTLW Kal TO avTO TH 


5. avris] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort (with margin), on 
very clearly preponderating authority: (ec., éavrijs. 


Donalds. Craz. § 182), and conveying 
the idea of something hanging down 
from the head, z.e. a veil or similar sort 
of covering. It appears from the ref- 
erences supplied by Lightfoot (Hor. 
Hebr. in loc.), and the notes of Grotius 
and Wetstein, that while the Jews 
covered the head in prayer, and the 
Romans while offering sacrifice, the 
Greeks prayed uncovered, — but, as it 
is doubtful whether the use of the veil 
(tallith) in prayer by the Jews is not a 
comparatively modern usage (Smith, 
Dict. of Bible, s.v. ‘Veil’) there seems 
no reason to think that the Apostle 
was here sanctioning particularly the 
Greek, as in contradistinction to the 
Jewish, usage, but was speaking broadly 
and generally. Hofmann contends that 
the Apostle is here referring only to 
domestic prayer; but to this not only 
the language (mpopntrevwv), but the 
whole tenor of the passage seems dis- 
tinctly opposed. KaTaLoX vet 
viv Kehadiv adrot] ‘dishonoreth his 
head ;’ not Christ (ver. 3), but ‘his 
head,’ in the ordinary meaning of the 
word: the adoption of a usage belong- 
ing to women, and indicative of subor- 
dination to men, would certainly in- 
volve dishonor to the man’s head who 
adopted it; and the more so in the 
service of prayer, and in the sight of 
Him who is his proper and true Head, 
he would be displaying a token of a 
human subordination: ‘profitetur se 
in terris aliquem supra se principem et 
rectorem habere,’ Estius. It does not 
appear that this was done in Corinth, 
but it forms the basis for the argu- 


ment: ‘conditionate loquitur de viro,’ 
Bengel. 

5. Taca Sé yuvi «.T.A.] ‘Sut (in con- 
trast to the case of the man) every 
woman praying or prophesying with 
her head uncovered, or (perhaps more 
exactly, as suggested by the previous 
Kata Kepadjs), unveiled ;’ second and 
contrasted conclusion from ver. 3. On 
the participles, see notes on ver. 4, and 
on the dative of mode and manner 
(axar. TH Kkep.), Winer, Gr. § 31. 7. d, 
Kiihner, Gr. § 425. 11. There is here 
some little difficulty, owing to the fact 
that such praying (if aloud) or prophe- 
sying would seem to have been for- 
bidden; see ch. xiv. 34, and comp. 
1 Tim. ii. 12. Perhaps at first the 
usage, which probably would not have 
been common, and confined to devo- 
tional meetings of a limited and in- 
formal nature (contrast ch. xiv. 34), 
was left unnoticed, until brought into 
prominence by the utter aratia of an 
uncovered head. The Apostle is not 
now concerned with the circumstances 
of their praying or prophesying, but 
with the manner and guise in which 
they did so: ‘ quatenus liceat [scil. 7d 
mporevxerOu 7) 7d mpopnrevew] Paulus 
differt ad cap. xiv., nempe extra con- 
ventum,’ Bengel. KATOLOX UveEL 
viv keh. adris] ‘ dishonoreth her head ;’ 
Sher head,’ as before, in its natural 
sense. To put away from it the mark 
of the divinely constituted relation of 
the woman to the man, and of natural 
modesty, is to do dishonor to the part 
where the 7d mpémor is violated: yuvatki 
ye why 7d KadvmrecOu Kéopos: Cyril, ap. 


Cap. XI. 5-7. 


éEvpnucvy. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


211 


6 23 \ > , \ , é x 
€ yap ov KATAKANUTTTETAL yur”, Kab Kelpacuw 


et Se aicypov yuvatkl Td KelpacOas 4 EvpaoOat, kataxaduTrTécOo. 


Tavnp pev yap ovk odeiher KataxadiTrTecOar Ti Kepadjy, 


Cramer, Caz. éy ydp éoriv 
K.T.A.] ‘for she zs one and the same with 
a woman that is shaven ;’ the subject 
of the verse being, as above, raga yurh 
k.7.A. (2.€. every such woman ’), and the 
generalizing neuter, the predicate cor- 
responding to it; see Winer, Gr. § 
27. 5, Kiihner, Gr. § 360, Kriiger, 
Sprachl. § 61.7.9. The woman that 
prayed or prophesied without a cover- 
ing on her head was on a complete 
level with one whose head, whether 
from grief (Deut. xxi. 12) or disgrace, 
or some form or other of shameless- 
ness, had been shaven; numerous ex- 
amples, more or less illustrative, will 
be found in Wetst. zz Zoc. On the 
verse generally, see a discourse by 
Mede, Works, Vol. I. p. 76 sqq. (Lond. 
1664). 

6. el yap od karakaX. KT.A.] ‘for ifa 
woman is not veiled, or, perhaps more 
exactly (the ov practically coalescing 
with the verb; see Winer, Gr. § 55. 2. b. 
and notes on ch. vii. 9), wsvezled, let her 
also cut close her hair ;’ confirmation 
(ydp) of the last clause of the preceding 
verse; if the woman is so lost to the 
feeling of modesty and decorum that 
she goes about without a veil, why 
should she not take a step further, cut 
close her hair, and affect man’s appear- 
ance in this particular also (Hamm.) ? 
The imperative expresses logical neces- 
sity,—let her do what is the natural 
outcome of going unveiled; see Winer, 
Gr. § 43. 1. The repdo@w is un- 
doubtedly middle both in form and 
meaning (see Kihner, Gr. § 376. 5), but 
there seems no reason to consider the 
associated verbs as in the same voice. 
The transition from the reflexive idea 
of the middle to the receptive idea of 


the passive (Kiihner. Gv. § 376. I) is so 
easy that, in passages such as the 
present, the association of the two 
voices is perfectly natural. Hence in 
the concluding clause of the verse we 
may regard Evpac@arand katakadv- 
mrég@w as passive. On the mixing 
up of the forms of the middle and 
passive voice, see Winer, Gr. § 38. 4. 
et 88 aioXpdv k.T.A.] ‘beet of it 7s a shame 
toa woman to cut close her hair or be 
shaven (pres. : ‘undergo the operation ;’ 
compare Kihner, Gr. § 382. 1), det her 
be veiled :’ the minor and conclusion in 
the simple syllogism. If that to which 
being unveiled almost logically leads 
involves disgrace, then indeed is there 
a good reason for a return to the usage 
of modesty and decorum: émméve 
Seckvds Br 7 avaxdaviis TH Evphoes EorKe - 
Kal domep exelve aicxpdy, olTw Kal arn, 
Theoph. 

7. Gvijp piv yap «.7.A.] ‘For a man 
indeed (7.e. a man contrasted with a 
woman; comp. Kiihner, Gv. § 518. 9) 
ought not to have his head veiled ;’ con- 
firmatory (ydp) of the last clause ‘let 
her (the woman) be veiled,’ and also 
introductory of a second reason for the 
monitory direction of the Apostle; 
mdAw étépa airy aitia. ovde yap dre 
kepadnv exer Tov Xpiordy pdvoy ovK 
dpeiAer KaAUTTETOaL ... GAN OTL Kal &pxet 
THs ‘yuvaxds, Chrys. As this is a 
second reason, following upon a first 
(ver. 3) of great weight and importance, 
the odk dpetAee will naturally carry the 
stronger meaning ‘ought not;’ it was 
not a matter of ‘non sit’ (Calvin), but 
‘non debet’ (Vulg.) : opp. to Hofmann, 
who, in arguing for the weaker 
rendering (‘is not bound’), seems to 
overlook the weight which the pre- 


212 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. XI. 7-10. 


eixov Kal boa Ocod irdpywv: 7 yu Se doa dvdpos éotw. 


8 > 4 > > \ > Ld > \ . > > } f 9 \ 
ov yap €oTW avnp €K yuvaiKos, GAA yuvn €& avdpos: * Kal 


yap ovk éxticOn dvnp Sia Thy yuvaixa, adrAa yun Sia Tov 


avopa. 


10 61a TovTo odeiher 4 yurn eEovoiav éxew el Tis 


7. n yuvh] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very clearly 
preponderating authority: ec. omits the article. 


ceding airia would mentally have in the 
Apostle’s thoughts. eikov Kal 
Sd—a Ocod trdpyxov] ‘seeing that he is 
(by original constitution) ze zmage and 
glory of God ;’ causal participial clause 
(Donalds. Gr. § 615) giving the reason 
why man’s head ought not to be veiled. 
He was made in the image of God 
(Gen. ii. 26, morhowuey GvOpwrov kat’ 
eixéva juetépav), and, as made in that 
image and prior to woman’s creation, 
practically exemplified the sovereignty 
committed to him (Gen. i. 28) by 
naming all living creatures (Gen. ii. 
19). He was also the ‘glory’ of God 
as showing forth the glory of his 
Creator, and being His master-work. 
As the eixéy and ddéa (both ideas being 
in close union), he sets forth the 
sovereign majesty of Him who made 
him. To give eixéy a wider reference 
to the moral perfections involved in 
the idea of the ‘image of God’ (De 
Wette; comp. Delitzsch, Bzb/. Psych. 
p- 127, Transl.) would here be alien to 
the tenor and subject-matter of the 
paragraph : ‘ vir dicitur imago Dei, quia 
Deus, in illo representatur;... gloria 
Dei, quia Deus in illo glorificatur,’ 
Estius. On the subordination of the 
wife to the husband, see Rothe, Z%eol. 
Lthik, §§ 305, 323, Vol. II. p. 271, 
2098 (ed. 2). : 

8. od yap éoti K.T.A.] ‘for man is 
not of (out of ) woman, but woman of (out 
of) man ;’ confirmation of the state- 
ment that woman is the glory of man 
by a reference to the origin of woman; 
Gen. ii. 21 sq. The elva: ée has thus 


here its primary and proper meaning, 
—not dependence on (Gal. iii. 10, 1 
Cor. xii. 16), but origin from,—‘aus 
dem Manne stammt,’ Ewald; see notes 
on Gal. iii. 7, and comp. Winer, Gr. § 
47. a. 

g. Kal yap ovK éxrloOn «.T.A.] ‘for 
man was also not created because of the 
woman, but woman because of the man:” 
further (kat) confirmation (‘e causa 
finali,’ Estius) of the general position 
that woman is the glory of man, and in 
subordination to him; the kat, as often 
in the formula, marking the addition 
of a further and enhancing circum- 
stance, and the ydp standing in co- 
ordination with the preceding ydp in 
ver. 8; see especially notes oz 2 Thess. 
iii. 10, and oz Phil. ii. 27, where the 
meaning of the two particles when thus 
in union (often overlooked or mis- 
understood) is somewhat fully investi- 
gated; see also Hartung, Partzk. Vol. 
I. p. 138, Klotz, Devar. Vol. I. p. 642. 
The article is inserted before yuvaika, 
as the reference is to ¢e woman alluded 
to in the text on which the Apostle is 
basing his statement, viz. Gen. ii. 18; 
it is omitted in the second clause (a@AAd 
yuvh «.7.A.), as ‘woman’ generally is 
there spoken of; but it is inserted 
before &vdpa, as here the same text 
equally brings before us ¢#e man, viz. 
the first man, in regard of whom God’s 
merciful sympathy was displayed. On 
this individualizing use of the article, 
see Kihner, Gr. § 461. 1, Kriiger, 
Sprachl. § 50. 3. 6. 


10. Sia Totro] ‘for this cause,’ viz. 


— . 


Cuap. XI. Io. 
Keparys Sia Tovs aryyédous. 


because woman is declared by the 
word of God to derive her origin from 
man, and to have been created on his 
account; 8a tadra Ta eipnucva dmayta, 
Chrys. To refer the 6a rotro to tke 
last clause of ver. 7 (Estius, De Wette) 
mars the natural sequence: ver. 7 is 
illustrated by two scriptural state- 
ments; from these two statements the 
7 OpelAew (See on ver. 7) is naturally 
deduced. opetrer ¥ yuvi) K.T.A.] 
‘the woman (here considered generi- 
cally,— the command is for all) ought 
to have (the sign of ) authority resting on 
her head. The explanations of the 
use of the abstract term in connection 
with a purely simple and concrete 
direction on the part of the Apostle 
are very numerous. It is, however, 
wholly unnecessary to discuss them, as 
the Greek expositors—to whom in 
such a matter we may rightly defer — 
unanimously, and apparently without 
any consciousness of any other inter- 
pretation, regard éfovciay as Td Tod 
éEouoid (eo Oat cvuBoroy (Theoph.), or, in 
other words, as used ‘ permetonymiam;’ 
the context supplying the obvious and 
natural interpretation. This efovcla is 
not the woman’s authority or dignity 
(Wordsw.),— a very unnatural inter- 
pretation,— but the man’s, ry Tod 
avdpds ekovoiay Kal Kupidtnta frep 
broxerrat (Phot.), that which is the very 
foundation and basis of the Apostle’s 
rule and directions. No strictly similar 
example has been adduced, as the 
passage in reference to the statue of 
the mother of Osimanduas, in Diod. 
Sic. (Bzbl. Hist. 1. 47, @xovoav tpeis 
Bactrclas ém) ris Kepadys) refers to 
sovereignties as acquired or possessed 
by the person specified,— not, as ex- 
ercised over her. In Tacitus, Ger- 
mania, Cap. 39, a ‘vinculum’ is spoken 
of as a ‘postestas numinis.’ The 


1 CORINTHIANS 


213 


arrnv ovTe yuv» ywpis avdpos 


passage therefore must be left to 
supply its own interpretation. The 
ancient Versions give no particular 
help, as they either translate literally 
Vuig., Svr., Copt.), or by what is here 
meant (‘ut veletur caput,’ Aith; comp. 
Arm.). The simplest form of trans- 
lation is that of Rev., which (with a 
slight change) is here adopted. On 
the meaning of eéovoia (‘rightful 
authority’), compare Cremer. J£70/.- 
Theol. Weorterb. s. v. p. 237. 

Sua toils ayyéAous ‘because of the an- 
gels ;’ scil. tobs ayyéAous aidouuevn, 
Theophlact,— having due regard to 
‘decency for the Angels’ sake,’ Hooker 
(Zccl. Pol. V. 25. 2). The interpreta- 
tions of this obscure expression are 
again very numerous. The simplest 
is the view adopted by the majority 
of the best expositors, viz. that the 
Apostle is here referring to the holy 
angels, deemed both by the Jewish 
Church (comp. Ps. cxxxviii. 1. LXX, 
Tobit xii. 2, and Philo, de Human. Vol. 
II. p. 387 ed. Mang. — where, in regard 
of the song of Moses, it is said, qv 
katakovovow t&vOpwrot te Kul &yyeAor 
Aettoupyol ; see Mangey’s note 27 Joc.). 
and by the early Christian Church (see 
the quotations from Chrys. cited by 
Hooker, /.c.; add zz Ascens. § 1, Vol. 
II. p. 448, ed. Bened.), to be present 
in the services of the Church: see Bp. 
Bull, Serm. x11. Vol. I. p. 322 (Oxf. 
1827), and the striking narrative in 
Chrys. de Sacerd. v1. 4, Vol. 1, p. 424 
(ed. Bened.), in which the same idea, , 
as to the liturgic presence of the holy | 
angels, is distinctly set forth: comp. © 
also the Liturgy of St. Basil (Swainson, 
Greek Lit. p. 77), in the fifth prayer of 
which, called the evx} ris eioddov, the 
presence of the holy angels is solemnly 
prayed for (roinooy oby ti ciodde jay 
elcodov aylwy ayyéAwy ‘yiveo@at) as an 


214 


1 CORINTHIANS 


Cuap. XI. 10-12. 


” Otek \ \ b] / 12 iA \ € \ I 
oUTe ainp xXwpis yuvaikos ev Kupip: “a@omep yap 1) yuvn ex 


n > / e \ e AS. \ a ld 5 DY , 
Tod avdpos, ovTws Kal 6 avnp Sia THS yuvatKoss Ta O€ TaVTA 


~ 


Il. obte yuv K.t.A.] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev. Weste. and Hort, on 
very greatly preponderating authority: ec., otre dvyp k.7.A., inverting the 


two members. 


accessory to the majesty of the service. 
Traces of this are to be found in nearly 
all the ancient Liturgies (comp. Swain- 
son, p, 205, 385, al.), and remains of it 
in the ‘Therefore with Angels and 
Archangels, etc.’ of our own service. 
To refer this expression to holy men 
(Clem.-Alex.), or rulers of the Church 
(Ambr., al.) is inconsistent with the 
lexical use of &yyeAor in the N.T. (see 
Cremer, Worterb. p. 17); to limit it to 
guardian angels (Theodoret), out of 
harmony with the context; and to re- 
gard it as initself monitory against 
tempting the angels (Hofmann), wholly 
at variance with all our conceptions of 
these blessed beings as suggested to 
us by the N.T.; see Estius 27 foc. The 
early opinion (Tertullian), that evil or 
fallen angels may be here alluded to, 
is admissible as far as the lexical use 
of &yyeAo is concerned (see notes on 
ch. vi. 3), but inconsistent with that of 
of &yyeAor, which words were thus used 
alone (Matt. xiii. 49, xxv. 31, Luke 
RVi22, Tor Xild, Heb. 1. 4) sal.) 
always refer to the oly angels. We 
therefore so understand the words 
here, and regard the reference to these 
blessed beings as implying that where 
they, in all their holy order, were 
ovAAELTOupyourTes Kal ouvvdotoAoyourTes 
(Basil), there recognition of a divinely 
constituted order was verily to be 
shown by every reverential worshipper : 
see Hooker, Zec/. Pol. I. 16. 4, and 
comp. Bull, Serm. XI. 2, Vol. I. p. 318 
(Oxford, 1827). An interesting sermon 
on this text will be found in Bp. Hall, 
Works, Vol. Vv. p. 461 sqq. (Oxf. 1837). 

II. wAhy obre yuvi) k.T.A.] 6 weverthe- 


less, neither is the woman without the 
man, nor the man without the woman, 
in the Lord:’ appended cautionary 
comment, the wAfqv, with its practically 
adversative force, limiting and placing 
in its true light the import of the pre- 
ceding verses. On the meaning of 
mAnv, see notes oz Phil. i. 18, and, on 
its approximation in meaning to aad, 
Kiihner, Gr. § 555. 6. 5. If any dis- 
tinction is to be drawn between the 
particles d@AAa indicates opposition, 
owing to something different (&AAo) 
being alleged, — 7Afv to something ad- 
ditional (mAéov) being brought into 
consideration which modifies what has 
gone before. The two words yuv7 and 
avho are, as in verses 8 and 9, without 
the article (see above), though here 
the idiom hardly allows it to be ex- 
pressed in translation. év Kuplw] 
‘in the Lord ;’ defining clause, com- 
mon to the two preceding members: 
‘in the Lord,’ scil. in the Christian 
sphere, there was no independence of 
thesexes ; each depended on the other, 
and both on Christ. On this familiar 
formula, see notes oz Eph. iv. 17, Vi. 
1, and Cremer, 476/.-Theol. Worterb. 
p- 385, Hofmann regards the év Kupig 
as the predication, and the xapls avipes 
and xwpls yuvaixds as limitations of it; 
but the relations to each other of the 
sexes generally is clearly the subject- 
matter, not their relations to Chris- 
tianity. 

12. dowep yap f yvv?| K.T.A.] ‘for as 
the woman is of the man, so also is the 
man by means of the woman ;’ con- 
firmation of the preceding clause by a 
reference to the fact of the propagation 


Cuap. XI. 12-14. 1 CORINTHIANS. 


215 


> fa) fa} gy 3 lal a a 

éx tod Oeod. ev tyiv avtois xpivate* mpetrov éotiv yuvaixa 
> r , a a ’ a a ek le , 1 
dkatuKdduTTov TO Oe@ mpocevyerog, ; 4 ovdse>y Pais avTy 


, CA / IAN \ \ » 
Siddoxes tus OTL avnp Mev CAV KOUG Atiuia alT@€oTW, Yuri) 
& 


14. ovdé 7 piois ath] So Lachm., Tisch, Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on 
very greatly preponderating authority: ‘ec. pretex_#, and adopts the order 


avTh 7H pvots. 


of the race by means of the woman: 
the first woman, it is true, came out of 
man /Gén. ii. 21), but it was through 
her, and women generally after her, 
that men came into existence. It may 
then be rightly said that each depends 
upon the other. The articles here 
again come into play, as the reference 
in the first member is to the known 
and historic fact relating to the origin 
of the woman. 7a, St wavTa 
ék tod Ocot] ‘but all things are of 
God;’ the totality of things,—not 
man only, and (derivatively) woman, 
but man, woman, and all their relations 
and interdependences,—come from 
God as from their true causal fountain 
and origin. On the 74 mdyra (‘all things 
collectively’ as distinguished from 
mavra ‘all things severally’), see Bishop 
Lightfoot oz Col. i. 16, and comp. 
Winer, Gr. § 18.8; and on the mean- 
ing of é« in this formula, (not here ‘ de- 
pendence on,’ De Wette, but ‘origination 
from’), see notes on ch. viii. I. 

13. év dpiv adrois kplvare] ‘judge ye 
in your own selves, ‘in suo quisque 
animo zstimate,’ Est.: appeal to the 
natural feelings of decorum and pro- 
priety; ‘naturam illis decori magistram 
proponit,’ Calvin. Compare the some- 
what similar appeal in ch. x. 15. 
1+ @ew] added to mark, still more dis- 
tinctly, the irreverence involved in the 
act. The dative of the person after 
mpocevxeOat, though common in ordi- 
nary Greek, is found only occasionally 
in the N.T., as here and Matt. vi. 6: 
the prevailing use of the verb is in- 
transitive ; comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 423, 8. 


ractical?’ 
wy” 

TA lise qQ bows KT.A.] ‘doth not 
even nature itself teach you?’ scil. the 
appointed order of things, pvois here 
referring more to the outward than to 
the inward (‘naturale judicium rectz 
rationis,’ Pisc., Meyer, al.), the appeal 
(as the ovdé seems to imply; comp. 
Hofmann 77 doc.) being to the support 
given to the inward feeling by the light 
supplied by the general order of nature 
(comp. Rom. i. 26, xi. 21, 24, James iii. 
7) in this particular, —natura, ejusque 
de decoro lumen,’ Bengel. For a full 
discussion of the various meanings that 
have been assigned to vous, the stu- 
dent (if necessary) may refer to the 
long note in Poli. Syzops (iz loc.), and 
for the more recent and philosophical 
estimate of the meaning of the word 
‘nature,’ Mill, Assays on Religion, p. 15; 
comp. Mozley, Serm. VI. p. 122 sqq 
Ste avi piv «.7.A.] ‘that if a man (em- 
phatic, and in contrast with yuvf in ver. 
15) have long hair ;’ the dt here being 
immediately dependent on diddone, and 
introducing the objectivesentencewhich 
follows; see Donalds. Gr. § 584, and 
comp. notes on ch. vii. 26. In some of 
the ancient versions (Vulg. [as in Lach- 
mann], Copt.) the 8t appears to be 
taken in its causal sense, similarly to 
its usage in ver. 15 (so too Hofmann) ; 
but the connection between d:ddones 
and the words that follow is obviously 
much more immediate than between 
the two members of ver. 15, and the 
objective or exponential sentence much 
more easy and natural than a causal 
sentence, which would leave unex- 
pressed what the teaching of nature 


216 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. XI. 14-16. 


a ' fl , \ 
dé dv Koma, Soka ath eotw; dre  Kopn avtl mepiBodaiov 


déoTat avTn. 


8 Wi 8€é tus Soxel Pidoverxos elvar, jets TovadTnv 


cubevav ovx Exopev, ovSE Wi ExKAnoias TOD Oeod. 


actually was. On the difficulty of 
settling the meaning of ~ 1 many 
passages in the N.T., se _ +s on ch. 
ix. 10, and on 1 Thess. i. 3. "She word 
kouay (‘comam nutrire,’ Vulg.) is only 
used in this passage in the N.T., but is 
common elsewhere, in both its natural 
and its metaphorical sense: see ex- 
amples in Steph. 7zesaur. s.v. Vol. Iv. 
p- 1773. On the custom of the He- 
brews (men) in regard of wearing the 
hair (generally short; but see 2 Sam 
xiv. 26, Joseph. Avztig. VIII. 7. 3), see 
Smith, Dict. of Bible, Vol. 1. p. 738; on 
that of the Greeks (at first long in the 
case of the Spartans, but afterwards 
almost universally short), and of the 
Romans (short, after B.C. 300), Smith, 
Dict. of Antig. s.v. ‘Coma,’ p. 328. In 
early Christian days short hair was the 
mark of the Christian teacher, as con- 
trasted with the usual long hair of the 
heathen philosopher: see Smith, Dicz. 
Chr. Antig. Vol. I. p. 755: 

15. Ste q Kony KT.A.] Sdecause her 
hair has been given to her for a cover- 
ing;’ reason why (see above ver. 14) 
long hair, in the case of the woman, is 
a glory to her, viz. because it serves as 
a kind of natural veil (cxérn imd tis 
gicews memopiouévn, Muson. ap. Stob. 
Floril. 1.84), the general term epi 86- 
Aaoy (‘quod circumijicitur,’ Grimm ; 
comp. Heb. i. 12) deriving here its 
more restricted meaning from the con- 
text and the general subject-matter of 
the passage. The prep. avi (properly 
‘in the place which is opposite,’ Don- 
aldson, Gr. § 474. a) is not of very 
frequent occurrence in St. Paul’s Epp. 
(Rom. xii. 17, Eph. v. 31, LX X, 1 Thess. 
v. 15, 2 Thess. ii 10); it is here in its 
common meaning of ‘ exchange,’ or ‘ in 


place of’ (one thing being set, as it 
were, over against another): see 


_ Winer, Gr. § 47. a, Kriiger, Sprachl. 


§ 68. 14. 1. It is derived from the 
Sanscrit uw... “T against), and so 
connected with the Laut te tthe 


Guess, “wo 


Gothic ‘and,’ and the German ‘ ant-’ 


and ‘ ent-;’ see Curtius, Griech. Ztym. 
§ 204, p. 186 (ed. 2), Kihner, Gr. 
§ 42. 1. On the perfect Séd0ra, as 


pointing to the permanence of the par- 
ticular order of nature referred to, see 
Winer, Gr. § 40. 4. 

16. Hi 8€ tus Soxet K.7.A.] ‘ But if any 
one seemeth to be contentious, our an- 
swer is, etc.:’ closing sentence, adding 
to the foregoing arguments the weighty 
practical argument derived from Apos- 
tolical authority and general ecclesias- 
tical practice. Lachmann connects this 
verse with the following paragraph: 
Tisch. makes it a separate paragraph; 
Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort (so also 
De Wette, Meyer, Hofmann) more 
naturally regard it as the closing words 
of the preceding subject: ‘ perspicit 
Paulus nonnulla posse excipi; sed ea 
reprimit auctoritate,’ Bengel. The 
meaning of Soxe? is somewhat doubt- 
ful: it may refer (a) to the opinion of 
others, — ‘videtur contentiosus esse,’ 
Vulg. (Syr. omits),—and may point 
to the case of a man bringing counter- 
arguments against what has been al- 
leged (founded, as they might be, upon 
recognized exceptions, Nazarites, etc. ; 
see Smith, Dict. of Bible, p. 739), and 
so having the appearance of being 
contentious. Or it may refer (4) to the 
opinion of the subject, ‘thinketh to be’ 
(Copt.), ‘wishes to be’ (Arm., Aith.), 
scil. is resolved on being contentious, 
‘certare pergit,’ Estius. On the whole, 


Cuap. XI. 16, 17. 


There are grave disor- 
ders in your celebration 
of the Lord’s Supper, 
and they bring judg- 
ments upon you. 


17. wapayyéAAwy ove émave@] The reading is somewhat doubtful. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


217 


U Tovto 5é tapayyéd\wv ovKk érrawe ott 


> > \ lal > \ ? \ & 
OUK ELS TO KpPElaocOY GANA ELS TO NooTOV cuV- 


Lachm. 


and Zreg. read mapayyéAAw ovK émaivav, with good, but, as it would seem, 
slightly inferior authority. The uncial evidence is much broken up by cor- 
rections, and one important witness [B] is practically silent, having the reading 
TapayyeAAwy ovK emavav, which obviously might be claimed by either side. 
The internal argument that the indic. rapayyéAAw would seem more likely to 
be a correction of the participle than conversely (see Zisch.) distinctly adds 
to the preponderance in favor of the text: so Rec., Tisch., Rev., Westc. and 


fort (but with margin). 


when we consider the tone of forbear- 
ance mingled with Apostolic authority 
that is clearly to be recognized in so 
many portions of this Epistle (consider 
the ov« émaw@ in ver. 17, and comp. ver. 
2) we incline to (a) and regard it as 
KaT& pelwow Aeyduevov; see notes ov 
Phil. iii. 4. On the slight break be- 
tween the protasis and apodosis see 
Winer, Gr. § 66. 1. a, Buttmann, 
Gramm. N.T. p. 338. 

hpets Tovattyv cvvyPeav odk eXopev] 
‘we have no such custom:? clearly, of 
allowing women to be uncovered, and 
especially when praying. The early 
expositors (Chrys., Ambr., Theoph. 
1,— not, however, Theodoret) refer this 
to iAdveikos elvat, an interpretation 
that seems singularly improbable, and 
is in no way required by the jets 
(Meyer). The pronoun may refer 
simply to the Apostle himself (De 
Wette, compare Theoph.) but, more 
likely, includes other teachers whom 
the Apostle knew to be of the same 
mind with himself ; ‘ doctores vestri, ex 
Hebrezis,’ Bengel, or simply, we 
Apostles,’ Estius 1, Osiandez, al. 
However taken, it would be equally 
strange for the Apostle to state that 
neither he himself nor he with others 
had the habit of being contentious. 
The most factious of Corinthians could 
hardly have supposed it: comp. Hof- 
mann iz Joc. This verse is used by 

28 


Bp. Andrewes as the text for a sermon 
on the duty of keeping Easter; Sevm. 
Vol. Il. p. 404 sqq. (A.-C. Libr.). 


17-34. Correction of the disorders 
that had taken place in connection with 
the Lora’s Supper. 17. Todro 8& 
Tmapayyc\dov k.7.A.] § Vow in giving you 
this charge L praise you not :’ transition 
to the subject that now calls for the 
Apostle’s especial notice, standing as 
it does in closest connection with the 
matter of decorum in their religious 
assemblies. The rodro will thus refer, 
not to what follows (Chrys., Bengel, 
al.), which, in such a transitional clause 
as the present would hardly be natural, 
but to what precedes,— ‘in giving you 
this charge about the veiling of your 
women, and now passing to another 
and graver subject, I do not praise you 
(as in ver. 2), that when you come 
together, it is for the worse and not 
for the better.’ The verb mapayyéArew 
has here, as apparently everywhere else 
in the N. T., its secondary meaning of 
‘jubere,’ the primary and more usual 
meaning being ‘nuntium perferre’ 
(Grimm): see examples in Steph. 
Thesaur. s.v. Vol. V. p. 222 (ed. Hase 
and Dind.), and comp. notes oz 1 Zim. 
3 In regard of the forms 
kpetooov and focoy there is no doubt, 
the evidence against the Attic form 
being here distinctly preponderant ; 


- 


218 


épyere. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. XI. 17, 18. 


18 al \ \ f ¢ a 9 > / 
TPWTOV MEV Yap TUVEPXOMEVOY UUW EV EKKANTLG 


axovw oxicpwata év tpiv bmapyew, Kat pépos TL TLoTEVwW. 1° det 


18. év ekxanota] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on vastly 
preponderating authority: Rec., ev TH éxkAngia. 


comp. Winer, Gv. § 5. 1. 16 (Moulton). 
Sti otk eis Td Kpeiooov K.T.A.] ‘that ye 
come together not for the better but for 
the worse;’ not for edification and 
spiritual improvement, but for the 
reverse. The 87 is not causal (Hof- 
mann) but relatival, not, however, with- 
out some tinge of that explanatory 
force which we may sometimes observe 
in its use in the objective sentence ; see 
notes on ch. ix. 10, and comp. Beza 
zn loc. 

18. mparov piv yap K.T.A.] ‘ Aor first 
of all when you come together in (the) 
church :* specially confirmatory illus- 
tration of the justice of the preceding 
comment, the mpérov uéy (not followed 
by any émeira 5¢) being designed to call 
full attention to the ground which the 
Apostle had for the ov« émava@ (comp. 
ver. 22) of ver. 17; mpd yap amdvTwr 
tu@yv éxeivo aiti@ua, Theodorus. The 
mp@rov wev will thus really be without 
any truly defined ‘in the second place,’ 
except what may be implied in the 
introduction of the next subject,— the 
disorders connected with spiritual 
gifts (ch. xii—xiv.); but such an omis- 
sion is by no means without precedent 
(comp. Rom. i. 8, iii. 2; and see Winer, 
Gr. § 63. e. y), and, in a passage like 
the present, in which the Apostle is 
speaking of an abuse of a very serious 
nature (consider ver. 29, 30), is 
especially natural. To make ver. 20 
the introduction of the second subject 
(Winer, De Wette, al.) is open to the 
gravest objections: it not only traverses 
the almost certainly resumptive (odv) 
reference of ver. 20 to the present verse, 
but (as is plainly admitted by De 
Wette) disposes of a subject (the par- 


ties and party spirit at Corinth) 
especially prominent in the Apostle’s 
thoughts (comp. ch. i. Io sq,) in two 
short verses, and almost without even 
implied reproof.. If, however, the 
party spirit is first mentioned as the 
root-principle of their various disorders, 
and then exemplified in the Lord's 
Supper, the connection is simple and 
natural, and the relation of ver. 20 to 
the present verse just what the repeti- 
tion of the ouvepxouevwy and the re- 
sumptive nature of the ody would lead 
us to expect. év éxxAnolg] 
This expression may be loosely ren- 
dered, as above, ‘in (the) church,’ but 
must be understood as implying what, 
our more familiar ‘in church’ would 
convey to a modern reader; the omis- 
sion of the article leaving ékxAnoia with 
a general, and here semilocal, force 
(comp. ém 7d adrd, ver. 20): see Bengel 
zz loc., and comp. Winer, Gy. § 50. a. 
It is thus not necessary to regard the 
word as here definitely implying ‘an ' 
assembly,’ but as retaining its ordinary 
meaning (Syr., Copt., Ath. [‘domo 
Christianorum’], Arm.) under the semi- 
local aspect above alluded to. 

dxotw oXlopata K.t.r.] ‘/ hear that 
divisions exist among you:’ principle 
statement, to which the preceding 
clause prefixes the defining circum- 
stances of time and place ; the divisions 
were shown not only in regard of ex- 
pressions and sentiments (comp. ch. 
i. 10), but even in the outward order 
of their solemn religious assemblies. 
Of the existeuce of these dissensions 
the Apostle expresses himself as 
continuing to hear, the present (akovw) 
marking ‘a state which commenced at 


Cuap. XI. 18-20. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 219 


\ \ Leas > eon (- ef i 80 \ , 
yap kal alpEecels €V UPLV ELVAL, LYVA Ol OOKLLOL pavepot YEVWVTAL 


> Lee 2! 
€v vp. 


an earlier period but still continues’ 
(Winer, Gr. § 40. 2. c, Bernhardy, Syzzz. 
p- 370), and the tmrdpxev the well- 
defined existence (‘wirklich seyn,’ 
Kiihner, Gr. § 355) of that which is 
spoken of. These oxlonata did not 
involve separations from the Church, 
but were dissensions that existed 
within it ; comp. Theodoret. 
Kal péepos Te murrsio] Sand TL partly 
believe it ;’ the accus. of the quanti- 
tative object to which the action ex- 
tends (see notes on ch. x. 33); ék wepous 
uikpod motevw, Chrys. The Apostle 
expresses his general belief in what was 
told him, otherwise he would not have 
made the statement in ver. 17; but, 
whether from the nature of the ac- 
counts, or the character of the in- 
formants, he is careful to say that he 
only believes a part of what he has 
heard: ‘miti sermone utitur,’ Bengel. 
19. Set yap aipéoes K.t.A.] ‘ Hor there 
must also be parties among you ;’ scil. 
definite aggregations into factions and 
parties,— this latter word more exactly 
defining the results and developments 
of the oxicwara; see notes oz Gal. v. 
20. The kat is thus partly copulative, 
partly ascensive (see notes o2 Phil. iv. 
12); it marks that which, by the very 
appointed order of things (5e2), will be 
found with the divisions, and into 
which they will have insensibly de- 
veloped; tas [aipéoes] tay ToLotTwy 
oxicuatwy, Theoph. The word has 
thus here no dogmatic reference (ov Tas 
tay Soyudrov, Chrys.) such as would be 
implied in the ordinary use of the 
word ‘heresies’ (comp. 2 Pet. ii. 1), but, 
as in Acts xxviii. 22, T7js aipécews Tavs 
(in reference to, Christians), points to 
the parties into which Corinthian 
Church-life was tending to crystallize: 
see notes ov Tit. iii. 10. In the de? 


20 > L 5 eo es aN \ > \ > ” 
UVEPKOMEVOV OUV ULWY ETL TO GUTO OUK EOTLI' 


there is nothing further implied than 
this,— that, there being such divisions, 
it is the divine purpose that they 
should subserve to the end specified in 
the next clause: Miiller, Doctr. of Sin, 
II. 4, Vol. I. p. 420 (Transl.). 

Ya ot Séxuror «.t.A.] ‘chat they that are 
approved may be made manifest among 
you ;’ that the nobler spirits may be- 
come known and recognized among 
you ; foreordered purpose — not merely 
the @Baois (Theophyl., comp. Chrys.) 
—of the existence of the aipéces 
among the Corinthians. The divine 
alchemy would disclose what was tested 
and genuine, what was alloyed and 
adulterate ; see Wordsw. zz doc. 

On the deep questions connected with 
this subject, see Rothe, 7%eol. Ethik, 
§ 479. I sq. Vol. II. p. 35 sq. (ed. 2). 
Lachm. and Westc. and Hort insert in 
brackets «at before of Sdxuor. The rat 
has certainly fair support, but is so 
likely to have been inserted to bring 
out and emphasize the associated 
words, that there seems hardly ground 
even for the limited recognition of the 
reading above specified. 

20. LvvepXopévav otv tpov «k.t.A.] 
‘When then ye (thus) come together to 
one place ;’ more definite specification ~ 
by means of the reflexive obv (see notes 
on Gal. iii. 5, Phzl.ii. 1) of the disorders 
which took place in their religious 
assemblies. The ém) 7d avto, as usual, 
marks the idea of J/ocality, and is in 
effect almost equivalent to the ev 
éxxAnola of ver. 18. On the use and 
meaning of this formula, see notes on 
ch. vii. 5. ovK tot KUpLaKoy 
Scirvov dayeiv] ‘zt zs not to eat the 
Lord’s supper ;’ the emphasis, as the 
position of the attribute Jdefore the 
subst. clearly indicates (Winer, Gr. § 
59. 2, Kithner, Gr. § 606. 1) resting on 


220 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


CuHape. XI. 20-22. 


\ 5 a mr , 91 isd \ + 18 8 a 
Kuptakov ELTTVOV haryetv E€KAGTOS yap TO lOoLOV OELTTVOV 7 po- 


/ J a tal AL 
AapBaver év TO haryely, Kal Os 


the word xupiaxov: owing to their dis- 
orderly conduct it was no more than 
an iSwrixdy detrvov (Chrys.). The verb 
éstw is thus to be taken in its usual 
sense, the clause preceding cuvepx. ov 
juay acting as a quasi-subject, and 
being in fact equivalent to an expressed 
tovTo, ‘ hoc non est,’ Beza; see Winer, 
Gr. § 44. 2. rem.: so in effect, though 
paraphrastically, Syr. (‘non sicut 
justum est die Domini nostri come- 
ditis’), and, as it would seem from the 
tenor of the sentences which he puts 
in contrast with it, Chrys. zz Zoc. The 
other Vv. (except Aith. which has a 
mere gloss) do not supply any clue to 
the meaning they ascribed to ov« éorw. 
The rendering ‘non licet’ (Meyer, 
Hofmann) is grammatically permis- 
sible (see examples in Kiihner, Gr. § 
473. 3, and in Ast, Lex. Plat. Vol. 1. p. 
622), but does not so well harmonize 
with the confirmatory sentence which 
follows, the object of which is to show 
how, by the very nature of the acts 
and circumstances, it could only be 
regarded as an idtwtixdy Setrvov. 
It appears to have been the custom in 
this early period for the celebration of 
the Lord’s Supper to have followed 
(after the example of the first institu- 
tion), and not to have preceded 
(Chrys.), the Agape, (Jude 12) or 
Love-Feast: see Suicer, Zhesaur. Vol. 
I. p. 24, Bingham, Aztig. xv. 7. 7, 
Augusti, Handb. d. Arch. Vol. I. p. 499, 
and Smith, Dict. Chr. Antig. Vol. I. p. 
40. A description of the Agape will 
be found in Tertull. Afo/. cap. 39, but 
it contains nothing from which we 
can certainly infer whether, at that 
time, the Lord’s Supper preceded or 
tollowed it. 

21. tkawros yap k.t.A.] ‘ Hor cach one 
in his eating taketh before (other) his 


22 yo 


\ a a \ VA 
pep trewda, os dé peOver. ™ un 


own supper ;’—his own supper, in 
contrast to the kupiakdy Setrvoy just 
specified, which he had professed to 
come to eat; confirmation of the pre- 
ceding statement, that it verily was no 
eating of a xupiaxdy Seirvov, but simply 
of an idtwrixdy Sefrvov. The proof of 
this lay in the patent fact that each 
one (‘de multis dicitur,’ Grot.), whether 
rich or poor, began eating his own 
supper, and never waited for the rest 
(ver. 33). It was thus no xouvdy detrvor, 
as it ought to have been (Chrys.), but 
a mere eating, it may be in the same 
place, but not at the same time, and 
with those characteristics which 
marked the blessed supper, of which 
this had become a travesty. Chrysos- 
tom, Theophylact, and others appear to 
limit the é€xaoros to the rich. What 
follows, in which each class is specified, 
seems to imply.no such limitation: each 
one had begun to adopt the bad habit 
of not waiting for others. kal 
ds piv mew «.7.d.] ‘and one hungers, 
and another ts drunken ;’ the natural 
result; the one who has brought but 
little, and might, at what ought to 
have been a common table, have re- 
ceived somewhat from a better-supplied 
neighbor, is hungry, while another who 
has brought much, takes of that 
abundance, and becomes drunken. 
The word wedvew has here its regular 
meaning (Matt. xxiv. 49, Acts ii. 15, 
1 Thess. v. 21): with one it was 
amAnotia and hunger; with the other it 
was downright drunkenness; eis wéOnv 
etéBaivov, Chrys. 

22. pi) yap oiklas «1.A.] 6 Verily 
have ye not houses to eat and drink 
zz ?’ emphatic, and almost indignant, 
question (‘interrogando urget,’ Bengel), 
the dp, as always in such cases, losing 
in the almost indignant question some- 


Cuap. XI. 22, 23. 


1reCORINTHIANS 


221 


\ o 7 ? ” > Nes 6 \ , pe eA HALO ho > 
yap ovKias OUK EXETE ELS TO EO LELV KQAL TLVELVY 5 1) TNS EKKANTOLAS 


a an a ta \ \ 4 / 
Tod Ocov xatadpoveite, kal KaTaioyvveTe Tos pn ExovTas ; Ti 


lal ¢ fal > 
elrrm wiv; érrawéow vas; év 


ie > > lal 23 > \ \ 
TOUT@ OUK €TTALVO). ey@ yap 


22. elrw tuiv] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev. Westc. and Hort, on very 


greatly preponderating authority: /ec., 


what of its usual confirmatory or 
argumentative force, but still retaining 
clear traces of that ‘sane pro rebus 
comparatis’ (Klotz) which is the funda- 
mental meaning of this compound 
particle; see Winer, Gr. § 53. 8. ¢, 
Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 247, and notes 
on Phil.i. 18. Were the reference is to 
the state of things just described, and 
to the censure implied in it; ‘matters 
being thus, the question may well be 
asked whether etc. :’ werd moAAod Aouwdy 
Tov Ouuod Thy emimantw éemdye, Chrys. 
In the wy) —ovx« the wh expresses the 
question, the od« belongs to the verb, 
and coalesces with it so as to form one 
idea,—‘surely ye are not without 
houses etc.,’ the wi as usual pointing 
to a negative reply: see Winer, Gr. § 
57- 3- 4, Kithner, Gr. § 587. 11, and 
notes on ch. ix. 4. q Tis 
éxkAnolas «.7.A.] ‘or despise ye the 
Church of God ;’ alternative supposi- 
tion, and the true one; they 4ad houses, 
and yet came to the place where God 
was worshipped, and behaved in the 
manner complained of. They despised, 
and showed their want of reverence 
for, alike the place set apart for the 
worship of God (comp. Hooker, Zcc/. 
Pol. v. 12. 5), and the congregation 
that assembled there (comp. ver. 18), 
by not duly sharing in the common 
meal which was preparatory to the 
celebration of the Lord’s Supper: 
omep yap Td Kupiaxdy Setmvoy idiwtikdy 
moves, obTw Kal thy Témov Madu, ws oikla 
TH exxAnola Kexpnuevos, Chrys. In the 
second portion of the two-membered 
sentence the uh €xovres does not mean 
‘those who have not houses to eat and 


buy etrw. 


drink in’ (AlIf.),—a_ possible, but 
singularly flat rendering,— but, in har- 
mony with the use of of @yortes as 
designating ‘the wealthy’ (Eurip. 
Suppl. 240, Alcest. 57; see Steph. 
Thesaur. s. vV. Vol. II. p. 2625, ed. 
Hase),—‘the poor (rods mévnras, 
Theoph.) those who had little or 
nothing to bring to these common 
feasts, and who, consequently, hungered 
(ver. 21): so Winer, Gr. § 64. 5. 

wi tpiv eltrw 5 K.t.d.] ‘ What am I to say 
to you? am Ito praise you? In this I 
praise you not:’ deliberative subjunc- 
tive,— in the second, as well as in the 
first clause. It is somewhat difficult 
to decide whether év tovtw, is to be 
joined with od« érayvéow, or with what 
follows. As ver. 2 seems clearly to 
imply that praise was, in the Apostle’s 
mind, due generally to the Corinthians, 
in regard of their observance of Chris- 
tian usages and mapadéce:s, and as this 
particular case was. distinctly specified 
as an exception (ver. 17), that position 
of év rovrw is to be preferred in which the 
words would have the greatest emphasis. 
If this be correct, the connection with 
the last member rather than with the 
words which precede is here to be pre- 
ferred: so Goth., Atth., Arm., and 
among recent editors, Zisch., Westc. 
and Hort. The connection with what 
follows seems also to point the same 
way; ‘in this certainly I praise you 
not, for I received of the Lord a very 
different mapddoats.’ 

23. ya yap mwapéAaBov k.t.A.] ‘or 7 
received of the Lord ;’ confirmatory 
reason for the distinct éy tovTw ovk 
émawva@ just preceding; the éy@ slightly 


222 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. XI. 23, 24. 


mapéraBov amo tod Kupiov, 6 Kat mapédwxa tipiv, dre 0 Kupios 


"Inoots ev TH vuetl 4 mapedidero édaBev aptov, 4 Kat evya- 


marking the personal element in the 
solemn statement (comp. notes on ch. 
vii. 28), and so the authority of the 
communication (ard rév Kkuptwrépwy Tov 
Adyov Spaiver, Chrys.), and the amd rod 
Kuplov specially calling attention to the 
source from whence the Apostle re- 
ceived it. St. Paul might have said 
simply mapéAaBov (ch. xv. 1, 3, Gal. i. 9, 
Phil. iv. 9), leaving it undefined from 
whom or under what circumstances he 
received that which he states. On the 
other hand, he might have said rapéAa- 
Bov rapa Tov Kuplov (Gal. i. 12, 1 Thess. 
ii. 13, iv. I), in which case he would 
have specified distinctly that the com- 
munication came directly from the 
Lord (‘afud Apostolum a Domino,’ 
Donaldson, Gr. § 485. a; comp. id. 
Crat. § 177), that it was, so to say, in 
His possession (Winer, Gr. § 47. b, 
mapa), and that He communicated it; 
see Kihner, Gr. § 440. a. 2. Instead 
of either of these forms of expression, 
the Apostle chooses a middle form, viz. 
amd tov Kupiov, by which he marks 
quite plainly the whence (comp. Hof- 
mann 7 Joc.) of the communication, 
but, in a wider and more general sense 
(Winer, Gr. § 47. b, amd, Kiihner, Gr. 
§ 430), and without necessarily implying 
(though it does not exclude it) direct 
personal communication. On the 
distinction between amé and apd, see 
notes oz Col. iii. 24. This is all that 
strictly grammatical considerations 
suggest : it is, however, scarcely doubt- 
ful (1) from the very insertion of the 
words under consideration, and (2) 
from the correlating kal in the clause 
that follows (6 kal wapédwra), that the 
Apostle distinctly sets forth our 
Blessed Lord as the source from which 
the wapdSoo1s emanated which he here 
communicates : see Hofmann 77 oc. 


8 kal mapéSwxa] ‘which J also delivered 
unto you: ‘not only did I receive it, 
but I took care to deliver it:’ ‘hoc 
ipsum quod a Domino accepi,’ Estius. 
An important sermon on this text by 
Bishop Jewel will be found in his 
Works, p. 1 sqq. (Parker Soc.). 
btu K.7.A.] ‘how that, or to wit that, the 
Lord Jesus ;’ the 6m: having here a 
sort of sub-explanatory force, and speci- 
fying the nature of the action: see 
notes on ch. ix. 10. The name “Ijaovs 
(‘considerate additur,’ Bengel) seems 
here appended in harmony with the 
historical, and, so to say, documentary, 
tinge of the clauses which follow. 
q mapediSero] ‘272 which he was being 
betrayed ;’ the imperfect marking the 
action which had in fact practically 
commenced (comp. Matt. xxvi. 16, 
Luke xxii. 6), and is here represented 
as going on up to the time of its actual 
consummation: see Kihner, Gr. § 383. 
1. It was on the night in which His 
betrayal was being completed that the 
Lord instituted the feast of His mercy 
and love: comp. Hofmann 77 doc. 
The form mapedideto is retained with 
very greatly preponderating uncial au- 
thority. A few similar instances are 
found (Matt. xxi. 33, Mark xii. 1, Luke 
xx. 9, Acts iv. 35); see Tischendorf, 
Prolegom. IV. 3, p- 124 (Leipz. 1884). 
24. ToOTS pov éotl Td Tapa] ‘ This is 
my body ;’ ‘this broken bread is (sac- 
ramentally) my body.’ In these few, 
simple, and yet almost boundlessly 
discussed, words, it here seems plain 
(1) that the todro can refer to nothing 
else than the bread, or rather small 
loaf, of which our Lord took, and, 
after He had given thanks (temporal 
participle), broke; the neuter pronoun 
being used (in accordance with the 
known generalizing character of the 


i A ee 


Cuap. XI. 24, 25. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


223 


/ »” \ - fy ey! b) \ \ A A) le 
ploTynaas ExXNacev Kal €lTrey* OUTO {LOU EGTLY TO DWLA TO UTrEp 


lal lal r ‘\ > / 
Uua@v* TOUTO Tro“eiTe Els THY EunV avawvynow. 


25 y, \ 
@MOQAUTWS Kat 


24. eimev Totto] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very 
greatly preponderating authority: ec. adds after efrev the words AdBere, pdyere. 
7d imp Suav] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev. (with margin), Westc. and Hort, 
on very clearly preponderating authority: Rec. adds kAduevov. 


neuter: comp. Winer, Gr. § 27. 5) as 
best expressing not merely the bread, 
but the whole antecedent matter and 
action, the bread taken, and, after 
thanksgiving, broken; (2) that éorty 
can mean nothing more or less than 
‘7s, the particular nature of the identity 
depending upon the circumstances and 
the context. Nowas the blessed body 
was there present, as yet unbroken, 
the éorfy could not have been under- 
stood to refer to material identity, — 
identity gwd substance, but it may, in 
part, have been understood then, and 
certainly is to be understood now, as 
implying a vea/ sacramental identity, 
and that the faithful do verily and 
indeed receive the spiritual food of 
the broken body and poured-out blood 
of the Lord; the bread and cup being 
‘causes instrumental upon the receipt 
whereof the participation of His body 
and blood ensueth,’ Hooker, Eccl. Pol. 
v. 67. 5: see also the still stronger 
language of Cyril (Hierosolym.), Catech. 
XXII. p. 271 (Transl.). Lastly, you, 
though the position might at first seem 
to suggest it, is not emphatic, but 
simply enclitic; the examples in the 
N.T. being numerous in which the gen. 
of the personal pronouns is placed 
before the governing noun without any 
emphasis being thereby implied: see 
Winer, Gr. § 22. 7. rem. I. 7d 
trip tpov] ‘which zs for you;’ ‘for 
your salvation and spiritual life ;’ ‘ner- 
vosa sententia,’ Bengel; comp. John 
vi. 51, where (according to the best 
reading) imép rijs Tod kécuov (wis stands 
in similar grammatical and energetic 


parallelism. This short, but most 
comprehensive, form of expression 
draws its full meaning from the éAacev 
above: it was tmép suay by being 
broken (on the cross), as the bread 
was symbolically broken in the sacra- 
ment. On the use of émép in doctrinal 
passages, see notes o7 Gal. iii. 13. 
TovTo Trovcite K.T.A.] ‘do this (present; 
ze. continually thus take bread, give 
thanks, and break it) zz remembrance 
of me ;” the possessive pronoun being 
here taken objectively, ‘in memoriam 
mei,’ but without any implied empha- 
sis (Edwards): comp. ch. xv. 31, Rom. 
xi. 31, xv. 14, and Winer, Gr. § 22. 
If any special emphasis had been de- 
signed, the personal pronoun would 
obviously have been repeated in its 
full form, and placed at the end of the 
clause. These words are found in the 
holy narrative as given by St. Luke 
(ch. xxii. 19), but do not appear in St. 
Matthew and St. Mark. To render 
the words ‘ sacrifice this,’ in accordance 
with a Hebraistic use of moe in this 
sense in the LXX (Ex. xxix. 39, Lev. 
ix. 7, al.; see Schleusn. Lex. Vet. Test. 
S.v.), is to violate the regular usage of 
moetv in the N.T., and to import po- 
lemical considerations into words which 
do not in any degree involve or suggest 
them. On the use of zovoiy in the place 
of verbs of a more restricted meaning, 
see Kiihner, on Xenoph. AZem. iii. 8. 2. 
25. aravTws Kal Td ToTHpiov K.T.A.] 
‘In like manner also the cup, after they 
had supped ;’ scil. he took, gave thanks, 
and gave to them, the last-mentioned 
verb being latent in ver. 24, though ob- 


224 1 


CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. XI. 25. 


\ / \ \ fol / fal a J e \ 
TO TOTHpLoy meTa TO SeiTrVATAaL, Neywv TodTO TO ToTHpLOV 7 KaLVi) 


, > ‘ > A BI lel ~ la) lal 4 UA 7X 
dvaOnKn ecoOTW EV TM ELM ALMLaTt TOUTO TFOLELTE, OOAKLS EAV 


25. doduis edv] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg. Westc. and Hort, both here and 
in verse 26, on clearly preponderating authority: Rec., dv. 


viously implied by the context. The 
words peta 7d Seumvjou (not ‘postquam 
‘ceenazz?,’ Vulg., but ‘ ccenaverzzt,’ Syr., 
fEth., or ‘coenatum est,’ Aug.: ‘after 
supper,’ Copt., Goth., Arm.), here 
specially added (‘ facto transitu ad ma- 
jora et ultima,’ Bengel oz Luke xxii. 
20), are only found in St. Luke, but 
are here studiously reproduced, as it 
was the especial object of the Apostle 
to emphasize the distinction between 
the Lord’s Supper and the ordinary 
evening meal: comp. ver. 20sq. The 
eating of the bread originally formed 
a part of the common meal (consider 
Matt. xxvi. 26, Mark xiv. 22, éo@tovtwy 
avrav),and may still have so continued ; 
but the cup was certainly afterwards. 
On the 7d morfpiov, see notes on ch. x. 
16. H Kawi) SvabqKy éotiy «TA. ]. 
‘7s the new covenant (made to be so) in 
my blood ;’ the écriy, not found in St. 
Luke, here separating the 7 kawh d1a- 
@hxn from the év r@ éu@ alwari, and 
leaving this latter clause as an ap- 
pended explanation of how the cup 
was the new covenant; it was so, in 
and by the Redeemer’s blood, and of 
that blood the wine in the cup was the 
sacramental manifestation; see Hof- 
mann zz doc. That, however, it is the 
presence of the éoriy, and not the ab- 
sence of the article (Hofmann) which 
marks the dissociation of the two 
members of the clause, may correctly 
be maintained ; such an expression as 
diabhkn ev aiuart being possibly, like 
miatis ev TH Kupiw (see notes o7 Eph. i. 
15), not grammatically inadmissible, 
especially in the N.T.; see Winer, Gr. 
§ 20.2. In regard of the meaning of 
the éorfy in this and the preceding 


verse, it seems proper to say, that the 
contention that the shade of meaning 
borne by the verb in the former clause 
must be the same as that borne by it 
in this clause, is not consistent with 
accurate principles of interpretation. 
In each case the shade of meaning 
must be derived from the associated 
words. Here it stands in connection 
with a substantive bearing an abstract 
meaning; there, with a substantive 
having a material meaning. Such de- 
gree of identity as is in each case ad- 
missible under the specifications of the 
context is distinctly implied, but neither 
more nor less. Interpretation must 
not be warped by controversy. 

TovTO Toveite K.T.A.] ‘do this, as oft as 
ye drink it, in remembrance of me:’ pe- 
culiar to this narrative, the TovTo motetre 
being used just in the same manner, 
and with the same reference to the 
acts performed, as in ver. 24. This 
tovro the Apostle, repeating the words 
of his Lord, reminds them was to be 
done whensoever, after their common 
meal, they drank of this sacramental 
cup. To refer dads éa» mivnte to every 
coming together at a social meeting, 
of which drinking formed a part (Hof- 
mann), is a very unnecessary and im- 
probable extension of the words, and 
the contention that the mlynre cannot 
have as its understood object accusa- 
tive the foregoing 7b morhpiov, wholly 
undemonstrable; see Kiihner, Gr. § 
507- 2. 6, and the numerous instances 
there given of this very common form 
of brachyology. What the Apostle, 
by the citation of the words, wishes to 
press upon his Corinthian converts is 
this, that whenever the common meal 


Cuap. XI. 25, 26. 


Tivynre, Els THY eurnvy avayvnow. 


CORINTHIAN Sk 


225 


96 c / \ +N ’ ath R 
OGQaAKLS yap €av e€oUlnTe Tov 


a fal 
apTov ToUTOV Kal TO TroTHpioy TWHTEe, Tov Bdvatov tod Kupiov 


26. td morhptov] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev. Westc. and Hort, on very 


clearly preponderating authority: Rec. adds roito. 


In the words that 


follow, axp: (Rec., Lachm., Treg., Rev., &xpis) has preponderating authority; 
and ob &A@n (Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Westc. and Hort) greatly preponderating 


authority: Rec., Rev., ob bv eAGp. 


passed into the sacramental, the Lord’s 
ordinances which he here recites were 
to be reverently observed. On the use 
of éav for &, probably a peculiarity of 
the later popular language, see Winer, 
Gr. § 42. 6.rem. For a sermon on the 
end and object of the Lord’s Supper, 
see Farindon, Servm. XXVulI. Vol. Il. p. 
71 sqq. (Lond. 1840). 

26. OwdKis yap Ket.A.] ‘ For as often 
as ye eat this bread:’ confirmatory 
clause, characteristically appended by 
the Apostle, even to his Master’s own 
words, to bring home to readers that it 
verily was an avduvnois of the Lord; 
see Chrys. 77 oc. Whether this confirm 
atory clause was derived from the rev- 
elation of the Lord (ver. 23: ccmp. 
Hofmann) or from the Apostle’s 9wn 
spiritual reflection, must remain a mat- 
ter of individual opinion. The &prov 
tovtov implies the bread, broken, blessed 
and offered, as indicated in the divine 
words just recited. The doctrinal im- 
portance of the kal 7b morhpioy mivyrte, 
as against communion in one kind, is 
distinctly felt, and even, to a certain 
extent, admitted (‘licet expressior sit 
representatio mortis dominicz in utra- 
que specie separatim sumpta’), by Es- 
tius 272 loc. Tov Oavarov K.7.A.] 
‘ye do proclaim the Lora’s death ;’ not 
merely ‘ye show,’ Auth., but, as St. 
Paul’s use of the word’ seems clearly 
to imply (Rom. i. 8, 1 Cor. ii. 1, ix. 14, 
Phil. i. 17, 18, Col. i. 28), £ ye proclaim,’ 
Rev. (‘annuntiatis,’ Vulg., Copt., Arm. ; 
‘commemoratis,’ Syr.), with reference 
not merely to a making known (‘ gak- 

27 


annjaith,’ Goth.) by acts and personal 
manifestation (see Farindon, Sermz. 
Vol. Il. p. 109 sq.), but by word and 
utterance. Whether this was by the 
solemn utterance of some words on 
the part of the ministrant or recipients, 
or otherwise, we know not; but the 
choice of the word seems clearly to 
imply something more than a mere 
‘representatio’ by acts and ceremonial : 
consider Ex. xiii. 8 (in reference to the 
Passover), kal dvaryyeAeis TS vid cou év 
TH huepa exeivy A€ywv, K.T.A., and comp. 
Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. in loc. It is 
scarcely necessary to add that not only 
the preceding ydp, but the whole tenor 
of the passage precludes the impera- 
tival rendering, adopted, or regarded 
as possible (Neander), by a few ex- 
positors. &Xpe od EAOn] ‘ zzt7/ 
He come ;’ until the blessed Advent, 
when the Lord Himself will be present, 
and the redeemed will partake with 
the Lord of the new Supper in the 
kingdom of the Father ; see Matt. xxvi. 
29, and comp. Martensen, Chr. Lthics, 
Part I. § 84. p. 191 (Transl.). No in- 
ference can properly be drawn from 
these words as to any deliberate ex- 
pectation, on the part of the Apostle, 
of a speedy return of the Lord. Hope 
may have often made what was longed 
for seem nigh, and may have given its 
tinge to passing expressions ; but when 
the subject was definitely entertained 
(2 Thess. ii. 1 sq.), then it becomes 
clear that the Apostle, speaking under 
the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, uses 
a language perfectly incompatible with 


226 


KataryyédnreTe, aypr ov ENOn. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. XI. 26, 27. 


i o, 4 
2 @ote Os dv éoOin tov aptov 


a» / \ / a“ / > / ” Vv le) 
 wivy TO TwoTHpiov Tod Kupiov avakiws, evoyos éotar Tov 


27. Tov uptov] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very 


greatly preponderating authority: Rec. adds rodrov. 


In the last clause 


the rod before afuaros is maintained by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and 
fort, on vastly preponderating authority: Rec. omits. 


any such alleged expectations: see 
notes oz 1 Zim. vi. 14, and on 1 Zim. 
iv. 15. The remarks of Messner (Lehre 
der Apostel, p. 287), though the writer 
leans to the popular view, are worthy 
of attention. The insertion of 
av (Zec.) would tend to represent the 
éAdei as conditioned and doubtful (‘ & 
semper, quod esse aut fieri dicatur, id 
ad aliquam conditionem, a qua hoc 
pendeat, revocat, Klotz), whereas, in 
the text, it is regarded as expected 
and unconditioned: see Hermann, 
Partik. tv, p. 113 sqq., Klotz, Devar. 
Vol. 1. p. 99, but observe that the 
particle is not connnected with eiva 
(Klotz), but with avd; comp. Donalds. 
Cratyl. § 186. On the distinction be- 
tween &xpi and méxpt, see note on 
2 Tim. ii. 9, and on the form with the 
added s (&xpi’Atrix@s: &xpis EAAQUKGs, 
Meeris) Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 231. 
27. ore] ‘So then, Consequently :’ 
consequence (‘éore consecutionem 
alicujus rei ex antecedentibus signifi- 
cat,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. Il. p. 771) 
flowing from the preceding clause, but 
stated in the form of a simple logical 
fact; as we proclaim the death of the 
Lord when we partake of this Supper, 
it is clear that he that partakes un- 
worthily proclaims that death un- 
worthily, and so becomes guilty in 
regard of the tokens of that death,— 
the broken body and poured out blood ; 
he receives, but so receives that he 
profanes.- On the use of &éo7e with the 
indicative, see notes oz Gal. ii. 17, and 
comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 586. The dis- 
tinction between éore and Gp’ ody is 


noticed above in notes on ch. vii. 38. 

4 lyn] ‘or drink ;’ not ‘and drink,’ 
Syr., Copt., Aith., Auth.,— a translation 
not only erroneous, but detrimental to 
the significance of the warning. 
Unworthy and irreverent partaking, 
whether of the one element or the 
other, involved the guilt of which the 
Apostle is about to speak,—guilt in 
regard of the whole blessed sacrament : 
hence 70d oéuaros xa} Tod aluaros in the 
clause that follows. That no polemical 
use (comp. Estius) can be made of this 
#, is perfectly clear: if partaking of 
either element unworthily involves 
guilt in regard of both, it cannot be 
inferred, with any soundness of logic, 
that worthily partaking of only one 
element is equivalent to worthily par- 
taking of both. Unworthy participa- 
tion in regard of one particularinvolves 
guilt in regard of the whole: worthy 
participation in regard of one particular 
is limited to that particular: it cannot 
include a proclaiming of the Lord’s 
body, when such proclaiming is dis- 
tinctly said to involve two particulars: 
see also above, notes on ver. 26. 
avatlws] ‘wzworthily,’ scil. ‘ina man- 
ner not befitting the solemn nature and 
significance of the act,’ ‘aliter quam 
dignum est tanta mysteria tractari,’ 
Beza: a studiously general form of ex- 
pression, designed to include not 
simply the particular form which un- 
worthy participation now assumed 
among the Ccrinthians (see ver. 29), 
but every form in which the mean 
whereby the body of Christ is received 
and eaten (see Article XXVIII.), viz. ‘a 


_ 


Cuap. XI 27, 28. I 


CORINTHIANS. 927 


—_ 


THLATOS Kal TOD aiwatos ToD Kupiov. * doximatétrw dé avOpwrros 


2 a f a 
€avTov, Kal oUTws éK TOU apTov éeabLéTw Kal Ex Tod TroTNpiov 


lively faith in God’s mercy through 
Christ,’ is not present and operative. 
The use of this general word rather 
than of any other more precise term is 
in itself full of godly admonition. 
Though it refers primarily to the 
character of the act (Hofmann) rather 
than to that of the actor (comp. Syr., 
‘and is not worthy of it’), the latter 
cannot be excluded. The character of 
the act would certainly reflect to a 
considerable extent the character of the 
actor : comp. Calvin 27 Joc. 

tvoxes éorar K.T.A.] ‘shall be guilty of 
the body and the blood of the Lord ;’ 
scil. ‘of profaning the body and the 
blood,’ ‘violati corporis et sanguinis 
Domini’ (Jerome),—the ger with 
évoxos marking, here and James ii. Io, 
the thing in regard of which, or by the 
violation of which, the guilt was con- 
tracted. In the remaining instances in 
the N. T. this adjective is used with 
the gen. in reference to (a) that to 
which, or by which, the subject éevéxe- 
tat; Heb. ii. 15, SovAelas : (0) the charge; 
Mark iii. 29, aiwvlov auapthuatos, comp. 
2 Mace. xiii. 6; (c) the punishment; 
Matt. xxvi. 11, Mark xiv. 64, Oavdrov. 
Of these four usages, viz. that in the 
text and the three just specified, the 
first and second are not found in 
classical Greek, and the third only 
occasionally,— the dative, in accord- 
ance with its leading idea of ‘some- 
thing added to the object’ (Donalds. 
Gr. § 455: comp. Rumpel, Casuslehre, 
p- 263), taking the place of the less 
appropriate case. Inferences drawn 
from these words as to the nature of 
the consecrated elements are obviously 
precarious. Unworthy participation, 
whether of the bread or of the wine, is 
what is here specially under considera- 
tion. Such participation was plainly 


a misusing and dishonoring of the 
divinely-appointed media of the com- 
munion of the body and blood of the 
Lord (see ch. x. 16), and so, in any 
case, involved the guilt here specified : 
see Hofmann 7 doc. 

28. Soxipatérm S¢ «.7.A.] ‘But let a 
man prove himself;’ antithetical ap- 
pended exhortation, suggested by the 
tenor of the foregoing clause; ‘ Buz, to 
avoid the grievous guilt just specified, 
let a man etc.’ In this case, as indeed 
constantly, what is appended is con- 
nected by the antithetical 5¢, ‘ qua non 
simpliciter nova enuntiatio priori op- 
poneretur, sed interna sententiarum 
conjunctio designaretur apertius,’ Klotz, 
Devar. Vol. i. p. 362; comp. notes on 
ch. 20. The collective oiv (see notes on 
ch. vii. 26) might have been here used 
instead of 5é, but it would have given 
a greater prominence to the exhorta- 
tion than would be consistent with the 
context, which deals almost exclusively 
with the abuses that had taken place 
and their consequences. On the 
meaning of Soxiud¢ew (‘ probare,’ Vulg., 
éferd(ew thy oikelay Sidvoiav, Theod.- 
Mops.), see notes oz 1 Thess. ii. 4, and 
Trench, Syzon. § 74, and on the use of 
&vOpwros as a ‘ gravior dicendiformula’ 
(it is more than a mere ‘unusquisque,’ 
Theod.-Mops., Estius, al.), compare 
notes on ch. iv. I. Kal ovTas] 
‘and so,—after he has thus proved 
himself, asd arrived at a true knowl- 
edge of his spiritual state ; ‘sic demum,’ 
Bengel. In what follows, the use of 
the preposition with éo@iew and mivew 
seems intended just to mark the more 
formal and reverential partaking (‘ pre- 
positio exprimit circumspectum ani- 
mum,’ Bengel) of the one bread and 
the one cup; comp. ch x. 17. Fora 
practical sermon on this text see 


228 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. XI. 28, 29. 


L 299 £ 2 Ai \ / D € na 3 ' \ 
TTLVET@ * Oo yap EOULWY KAL TTLYMV Kplua EAUT@ ea Bleu KQl TiuUel 


29. mivwy] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly pre- 
ponderating authority: Rec. adds avatiws; repeated probably from verse 27. 
o@ua] So all the above-mentioned edd. on similarly preponderant authority: 


Rec. adds rod Kupiov. 


Farindon, Serm. Xxx. Vol. Il. p. 113 
sqq- (Lond. 1840), and on the duty of 
‘self-proving,’ Rothe, Zheol. Ethik, § 
872, Vol. 111. p. 465 sq. (ed. 2). 

29. 6 yap éoOiwv K.t.A] ‘ Hor he that 
eateth and drinketh ;’ the words being 
repeated with solemnity from ver. 28, to 
the general tenor of which this present 
verse forms a confirmatory sequel: ‘such 
a proving of himself is indeed needful in 
the case of each one who approaches 
the Lord’s table, for he that eats and 
drinks thereat, etc.’ The éo@fe rad 
avec continue the iteration with deep- 
ening solemnity. kplya eavTo 
K.1t.A.] ‘eateth and drinketh judgment 
to himself ;’ «piua here retaining its 
simple and proper meaning, — not 
‘condemnationem,’ Syr., al., but ‘ju- 
dicium,’ ‘staua,’ Goth.,—and leaving 
the context to indicate the character 
of the judgment, whether favorable or 
otherwise; see notes oz Gal. v. Io. 
From the present context it is clear 
that a condemnatory judgment is im- 
plied, but it does not follow that it is 
‘poena mortis zternz,’ Estius, as the 
two verses that follow point rather to 
temporal judgments. The verse, how- 
ever, loses but little of the gravity that 
has always rightly been associated with 
it, and the solemn truth remains, that 
he who approaches the Lord’s table, 
and in eating and drinking thereof 
does not discern and solemnly regard 
the sacramental body to be ‘meat in- 
deed’ (John vi. 55), does verily eat and 
drink to himself the judgment of Al- 
mighty God. What the nature of that 
judgment will be will depend upon the 
nature of that which calls it forth. 


This «piua, as Chrys. rightly observes, 
is ob mapa thy avtis [the holy rpame¢a] 
plow, GAAX Tapa Thy Tod mpoolovros 
mpoatpeoww : comp. Theoph., Gicum. 

#1} Staxplvev Ta copa] ‘ot discerning 
(or, to preserve the connection with ver. 
31, and the consequent paronomasia, 
— rightly judging) the body,’ scil. ‘tf he 
do not discern (or rightly judge) the 
body, the participle being here used 
with a hypothetical or conditional refer- 
ence; see Kiihner, Gr.§ 486. 3, Schmal- 
feld, Syzt. § 207. 5. The Greek ex- 
positors adopt the causal reference (d14 
tl, Chrys.), but they adopt the reading 
dvatiws, with which this latter inter- 
pretation more naturally coalesces. 
What is here dwelt upon is the case 
and circumstances under which he that 
eats and drinks eats and drinks judg- 
ment to himself, and this case is when- 
soever the o@ua is not regarded in its 
holy and saving nature by him who 
presumes to receive it. The verb may 
have here two meanings, either (a) d7s- 
criminating, viz. between the Lord’s 
body and earthly and common food 
(Estius, Hofmann, and apparently Syr. ; 
comp. Acts xi. 12, xv. 5); or (4) ds- 
cerning, forming a judgment on, ‘ diju- 
dicans,’ Vulg,, ‘discernens,’ Clarom.’ 
‘démjands,’ Goth.; comp. ch. xiv. 29, 
Matt. xvi. 3. Of these the latter is to 
be preferred, as in itself yielding a 
pertinent sense and in full harmony 
with the context, nnd especially as sug- 
gested by ver. 31. — it being improbable 
that in two sentences bearing on the 
same subject, and close to each other, 
the meaning of the word would not be 
the same: so Chrys. (uh éekerd{wv, uh 


ie . 


s 


nr rad 


CuapP. XI. 29, 30. 


un Siaxpivov To caya. did 


evvoay, &s Xph, Td meyebos THY mpoKermé- 
vev), Theoph., Gicum., and the majority 
of modern interpreters. In regard of 
the serious doctrinal question which 
this verse raises, viz. what it is that 
the wicked receive, the answer, in ac- 
cordance with the whole tenor of the 
verse (comp. Hofm.), and indeed of the 
passage, can only be that of our Church 
(Art. XXIx.): what they outwardly take 
is the sacrament of the Lord’s body 
and blood, z.e. that which to the faith- 
ful is verily and indeed the spiritual 
food of the body and blood of the 
Lord, but to them (the wicked) is 
merely the ‘tante rei sacramentum 
seu symbolum,’ the ‘sacramentum,’ as 
Augustine (2 Joann. Tract. Xxv. 11) 
says, being one thing, the ‘virtus sac- 
ramenti’ another. Thus undiscernedly 
eating and drinking the ‘sacrament of 
so great a thing,’ thus manifesting 
what Martensen (Dogm. § 267) terms 
‘the unhallowed sense’ which fails to 
discern between the holy and the pro- 
fane, they fall under the heavy judg- 
ment of ver.27. It is not, however, 
that the Lord’s body and blood be- 
comes to them a‘ venenum’ (Grot.), or 
even, strictly speaking, ‘ the instrument 
of their punishment’ (Wordsw.; comp. 
Chrysost., épdd1a koAdcews). They are 
punished for profanation, and because, 
to use the words of Augustine (Zac. czt.), 
‘bonum male mali accipiunt:’ comp. 
Dorner, Chr. Doctr. § 145. 3, Vol. Iv. 
Pp: 229 sq. 

30 Sa Troiro év tpiv Kr.A.] ‘For 
this cause many among you are weak 
and enfeebled ;’ illustrative proof (tatra 
@s yevevnueva tébexev, Theod.) from 
the Corinthians themselves (the év dyiy 
is slightly emphatic, as its position 
suggests) of the xplua éavrd éo6ler Kad 
mivet, and of the serious connection 
between physical disease and profana- 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


229 


TOUTO €y wiv ToANOL aaUeveis 


tion of the Lord’s Supper. It is. not 
easy to draw any very clear distinction 
between aoGeve?s and &ppworor (‘infirmi 
et imbecilles,’ Vulg., ‘infirmi et morbo 
languidi,’ Valck.), except perhaps this, 
that the less frequently used term 
&ppwora (Matt. xiv. 14, Mark vi. 5, 13, 
xvi. 18) seems to point to diseases pre- 
dominantly marked by loss of bodily 
power (‘diuturno languore teneri,’ 
Calvin), while the more common do6e- 
veis is simply used to denote sickness 
generally. The reference of these words 
to moral diseases (Valck. zz Joc.) is 
out of harmony with the context, and 
not even alluded to by any of the ear- 
lier expositors. What took place was 
of a nature that admitted no doubt: 
Zoya Seixvvot, Kal udptupas a’to’s Ka- 
Aci, Chrysostom. 

kowpavrar ixavol] ‘ot a few are sleep- 
imgi;7?. the (thus felicitously 
rendered by Rev.) being pehaps in- 
tended here to mark something less 
than the moAdAol, though still sufficiently 
numerous to arouse serious attention. 
The verb koiuao6a, in accordance with 
its usage in 1 Thess. iv. 13 (see notes 
iz loc.) is nor here ‘obdormire’ 
(Bengel; comp. Winer, Gr. § 4o. 2. ¢.), 
but simply ‘dormire,’ Vulg..—to be 
sleeping (the sleep of death), ‘in morte 
quiescere,’ Estius. It is, however, very 
probable that the term was chosen as 
not implying any ‘mortem diram’ 
(comp. Bengel), such as in Acts v. 5, 
10, but the final issue of dc@éverm and 
Gppwotia that came as warnings, but 
which came so in vain. In regard of 
such manifestations of God’s judg- 
ments, it may be remarked first, that 
the profanation of the Lord’s Supper 
may have been, as the ds d¢ wedver (ver. 
21) seems to imply, of a very grevious 
nature; and secondly, that temporal 
punishments like other miraculous 


€ / 
tKQaVOL 


280 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. XI. 30-33. 


kai dppworot, Kat KowavTat ixavol. “lei d€ éavTods duexpivoper, 


ob dv éxpwopeba @ xpuvdpevor S€ bd Tob Kupiov mawWevopeba, 


31. ef 8€] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very clearly 


preponderating evidence: Rec., ef ydp. 


32. rod Kuptov] So Zisch., Treg. Westc. and Hort, on preponderating au- 


thority: Aec. omits Tov. 


manifestations, in accordance with the 
eternal wisdom of God, formed a part 
of the disciplinary development of the 
early life of the Christian Church. 

31. eb 8& EavTods K.T.A.] ‘But zf (on 
the contrary) we rightly judged our- 
selves we should not be judged ;’ not ‘if 
we had judged ourselves, we should 
have, etc.,’ Alf. (which would imply an 
aorist in each member), but, with the 
proper force of the tense (comp. Gal. 
i. 10), ‘if we were in the habit of rightly 
judging, etc.:’ contrasted statement 
(5€) to the facts mentioned in the fore- 
going verse, and expressed in the 
plurale communicativum (Winer, Gr. § 
58. 4. rem. 2), so as to generalize the 
statement and divest it of any apparent 
severity of tone; tadra 5& Aéyel, duod 
bev mapapvOodmevos Tovs a&pp@aTous, duov 
de Tov’s BAAovs arovdaoTépous ToLdy, 
Chrys. zz/oc. It seems difficult to deny 
(Hofmann) that the word d:axpivey here 
was chosen with some reference to its 
use in ver. 29. The subject-matter on 
which the judgment is formed is, it is 
true, different, but the same idea of 
‘dijudicatio,’ ‘forming a right estimate 
of’ (kataywéorwy ws Set, Chrys.; comp. 
Soximaérw éuvtdv, ver. 28) is clearly to 
be traced in each passage. On the 
meaning of the verb, see above, notes 
on ver. 29. 

32. Kpwopevor St K.T.A.] ‘But when 
we are (thw) judged, we are being 
chastened by the Lord ;’ continuation 
of the former statement by the addi- 
tion of a further comment (dé: ‘novum 
quid accedit,’ Hermann, Viger) on the 
true aspect of the xplyec@ar. The rod 


Kupiov, though, from the tenor of 
passages such as Heb. xii. 6, al., plaus- 
ibly referred to God (Chrys., Theoph., 
Calvin, al.), is more probably to be 
referred to our Lord (Estius; comp. 
Syr. and Theod.), in accordance with 
the general context, and, it may be 
added, wiih the general usage in St. 
Paul’s Epistles; see notes oz 1 Thess. 
iii, 12. On the meaning of madevew 
‘per molestias erudire (vov@ecias ydp 
MaAAdy eoti 2) Karadikns Td yvduevor, 
Chrys.), see Trench, Syvon. § 32, and 
notes oz Zh. vi. 4; and on the general 
use of this word as implying that the 
one so dealt with is still within the 
sphere of ‘the fellowship of God’ 
(punishment being without), see Miiller, 
Doctr. of Sin, 1. 2. 2, Vol. 1. p. 264 
(Transl.). Wa pa civ TO Koo po 
Katakp.] ‘that we should not be con- 
demned together with the world,’ scil. at 
the last great day ; merciful purpose of 
the maidever; God willeth the salvation 
of all (1 Tim. ii. 4, iv. 10), and chastens 
in order that his gracious #éAnua should 
not be hindered by the sinfulness of 
man. The ody r@ kéopw is added to 
mark still more clearly the particular 
katd«piois to which the Apostle is re- 
ferring : ‘mundo certa est condemnatio,’ 
Bengel; comp. Calvin zz Joc. On the 
meanings of xéouos (here, the evil 
world,— but not necessarily [Estius] 
‘propter immensam eorum [infidelium 
et peccatorum] multitudinem),’ see 
Cremer, Worterb. p. 367, and notes ox 
Gal. iv. 4. 

33. Wore, ASeApol pov, KT.A.] ‘So 
then, or Consequently, my brethren, 


_ 244, al.). 


Cuap. XI. 33, 34- 


iva pn ody TO KOoWM KaTaKpLOdpeD. 
ouvEepyYopevot cis TO Payely GA NAOUS Exdeyveoe. 
b] ” » / ivf \ > / / 

ev oikm éoOuéTo, iva pn els Kpiua ouvéepynobe. 


as av dw, SiataEouas. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


231 


3 Bore, doehpot pou, 
“4 e¢ TUS TEA, 


Ta O€ AOLTTA 


34. &f tis] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly 
preponderating authority: ec. inserts 5é between the two words. 


when ye come together to eat,’ scil. the 
common meal that terminated with the 
Lord’s Supper : concluding exhortation 
based upon the foregoing statements ; 
the &cre, with the imperative, intro- 
ducing, with some slight degree of 
rhetorical force, the inferential direction 
which the Apostle here gives to his 
converts ; see notes on ch. x. 12, and 
on Phil. ti. 12. The eis 7d with the 
infinitive represents, with studied dis- 
tinctness, the purpose of the ouvep- 
xeo8ar ; see Winer, Gr. § 44. 6, Buttm. 
Grid. T.. p..227-/sq, a&AHAous 
exdéxeoOe] ‘wait for one another ;’ 
‘invicem expectate,’ Vulg., Clarom., 
Syr., Copt., Arm.; ‘expectate socios 
vestros,’ /Eth. The verb éxdéyerOu 
has two meanings; (a) excipere,— the 
more common meaning in classical 
Greek, and indeed in the LXX and 
Apocrypha (Is. lvii. 1, Ecclus. xviii. 14, 
al.) ; (2) expectare,— the meaning regu- 
larly found in the N. T. (ch. xvi. 11, 
Acts xvii. 16, Heb. x. 13, xi. 10, James 
v. 17), and occasionally in classical 
writers (Soph. PAz/. 123, Eurip. Zo. 
This latter meaning is here 
rightly maintained by most of the 
recent expositors, the direction of the 
Apostle being that it was the duty of 
all a@vapevery thy Kowny ovvédrcvow, 
Theoph. Hofmann maintains (a), on 
the ground that merely waiting for 
one another would not really remedy 
the true evil, viz. of making the Lord’s 
Supper an id:wrixdy Se?mvoy (Phot.), but 
that the vecezval of each person, and of 
what he brought, would do this. The 


argument is plausible, but it involves a 
greater extension of meaning than the 
GAAnAous €kdéxeo0e would bear, and an 
isolated departure from the meaning of 
the verb in the N. T. If they waited 
for one another there could not be any 
mpoadnys of what was brought, and 
no excuse left for making the supper 
idwrikdy in the case of any one: ‘quo 
simplicius, eo melius,’ Bengel. 

34 et TIS Tew K.T.A.] 6 Zf any man 
hungers, let hin eat at home ;’ if the 
excuse of hunger is made for the ir- 
regularities, the answer and remedy is 
easy. The omission of any connecting 
particle gives the sentence a greater 
sharpness and emphasis: eédywv a’tovs 
amd THs éexkAnolas cis thy oikiay mapa- 
méuret, Theoph. The words that fol- 
low mark the purpose: it was no mere 
manifestation of apostolical authority, 
but was designed to save them from 
serious consequences: see Chrys. zz 
loc. va 5 Aouad K.t.A.] ‘ But 
the rest will I set in order whensoever L 
may come (lit. shall have come) ;’ state- 
ment, in the form of a slightly anti- 
thetical sentence (sub-adversative 6é; 
comp. notes o7 Gal. ii. 20), of the man- 
ner in which the remaining matters 
connected with the irregularities in the 
celebration of the Lord’s Supper would 
be dealt with: 7a Aowrd TH Tapovcla 
tetnpneev, Theod. TheaAomd obviously 
refer to the matters connected with the 
subject of the present paragraph, not 
to other matters therewith (Chrys.), 
and, as the verb suggests (comp. ch. 
xvi. I, Acts vii. 44), to questions of 


232 


The true criterion of 
spiritual gifts is confes- 
sion of the Lord Jesus. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. XI. 34-XII. 2. 


XII. epi S€ tav mvevpatixdyv, aderdoi, 
> I e nr ? lal 
ov OéX\w was ayvoeir. 


2Oléate OTe OTE 


2. 6rt te] So Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on greatly preponder- 
ating authority: Zachm., encloses the ére in brackets; Mec. omits. 


ceremonial rather than of doctrine; 
‘quz pertinent ad externam eiratlay,’ 
Vorst. In the concluding words the 
addition of & to the temporal particle 
implies the uncertainty when the event 
specified by the verb subjunct. will 
take place; see notes oz Phil. ii. 23, 
and comp. Kthner, Gr. § 566. 1. and § 
567. 2. The remarks of Chrysostom 
(comp. Theoph.) seem rather to imply 
that he did not feel this shade of un- 
certainty as to the Apostle’s coming ; 
at any rate it cannot safely be inferred 
from these words (Wordsw.) that the 
Apostle was at this time meditating a 
visit: he was considering it perhaps 
likely that he should come, but when 
that would be was certainly regarded 
by him as uncertain; comp. Hermann, 
Paritic. tv, p. 77, Winer, Gr. § 42. 3. d. 


VI. SPIRITUAL GIFTS, AND MORE PAR- 
TICULARLY PROPHESYING AND SPEAK- 
ING WITH TONGUES (ch. xii—xiv.). 


XII. 1-3. Spiritual gifts, their true 
and essential character. 


1. Tlept 8& trav mvevpaticory] ‘Vow 
concerning spiritual gifts:’ transition, 
by means of the 8 uetaBatixdy (see 
notes oz Gal. i. 11, iii. 8), to another 
set of circumstances in which disorders 
and irregularities had shown them- 
selves in the Corinthian Church. 
Whether what is here stated is in 
answer to enquiries (ch. vii. 1), or in 
consequence of information received 
(ch. xi. 18), cannot positively be deter- 
mined: the form of words rep) 8€ x.7.A. 
seems rather to imply the former. 
Whether mvevuatindy is here neuter 
(ch. xiv. 1) or masculine (ch. xiv. 37) is 


also rather doubtful. The Versions 
leave it uncertain; so also Theodoret: 
Chrysostom, Theodorus, and Theoph. 
distinctly adopt the former, while 
Origen (Cramer, Catez.) apparently in- 
clines to the latter view. In this 
uncertainty, which is equally apparent 
in later expositors, it is not easy to 
speak with confidence; still this may 
be urged, (1) that, in what fellows, the 
peculiar gifts, rather than the persons 
who are endowed with the gifts, appear 
to occupy the prominent place in the 
Apostle’s thoughts; (2) that in the 
partially antithetical clause (ver. 4) with 
which the elucidation of the broad 
principle laid down in ver. 3 is intro- 
duced, the use of the term xapiouata 
does seem to imply that it refers back 
to, and is practically synonymous with, 
the term used in ver. 1. We decide 
therefore in favor of the 1euter render- 
ing: ‘vocat ea spiritualia ab auctore 
Spiritu Sancto,’ Estius z Joc. 
ov Bédw «.7.d.] ‘7 would not have you 
zgnorant:’ studiedly formal introduc- 
tion of an important subject: see notes 
On Ghe at. Le 

2. OiSare Stu Ste k.t.d.] 6 Ve know 
that, when ye were Gentiles, ye were 
led away, etc.:’ introduction of the sub- 
ject by a reference to the state in which 
they were before their conversion 
(comp. Eph. ii. 11), and so to the need 
of being instructed in a subject of 
which they could before have had no 
experience. The construction of the 
words is somewhat difficult, and was so 
regarded by Theodoret and Chrysos- 
tom, who see in the passage a kind of 
hurried brevity. In the grammatical 
analysis of the sentence, however, this 


CHAP. XII. 2, 3. 


PCORINT HilA NS. 


233 


€Ovn Te mpos Ta eidwra Ta adwva ws av ijtyec0e aTrayopevol. 


would seem clear, that, in so short a 
sentence, we cannot admit (a) any ex- 
planation that would treat it as an 
anacoluthon, and regard the 87m as 
practically otiose; nor (4) any resump- 
tion of the ér: in the form of the és 
that follows (see Kiihner, Gr. § 551. 6), 
—‘how that, when ye were Gentiles, 
how (I'say) ye were led to dumb idols,’ 
—as the participial clause is thus with- 
out any real force, structurally awk- 
ward, and contextually almost super- 
fluous. We are thus left with the only 
other possible mode of interpreting 
the words, viz. (c) the intercalation of 
a second re after the participle. Ac- 
cording to this view, the 8re €0vn Fre 
and the &s dy #yec8e are subordinate 
clauses, the one with a temporal, the 
other with a sort of modal reference, 
and we are left only, as regards struc- 
ture, with the words ofSare dt: mpds 7d 
eldwra Ta &pwva, dmrayduevot, in the case 
of which either we may assume an 
ellipse of the auxiliary verb (Kiihner, 
Gr. § 354. b, obs. 1. 2), or that sort of 
association of the participle with the 
finite verb which is practically equiva- 
lent to it: comp. examples in Kihner, 
Gr. § 551. 4, and comp. Stallbaum on 
Bato; Agel. p37 \B. This last- 
mentioned interpretation is, on the 
whole, to be preferred: so Meyer, 
Evans, and, apparently, also Heinrici, 
in his recent edition (ed. 6) of Meyer’s 
Commentary on this Epistle. 

mods Ta cidwta Ta Udwva) ‘unto the 
dumb idols’ that ye formerly wor- 
shipped; the preposition marking with 
its usual and primary meaning (‘mo- 
tion toward,’ Donalds. Craty/. § 169) 
the direction of the amdyeo@a: it was 
toward these mere dumb ‘simulacra,’ 
to pay honor and worship to them, that 
they were carried away, ‘instar pecu- 
dis,’ Calvin; the amayduevar pointing, 

30 


not so much to the ‘recta via’ (Grimm) 
from which they were drawn, as to the 
forcible and hostile character of the 
action (rd €Akeo@at, Chrys.), while the 
&pwva appropriately hints at the abso- 
lute impotence of that which had ‘no 
breath at all in the midst of it’ (Hab. 
il. 19) to call forth utterances in others. 
Thus each word has its appropriate 
and suggestive significance. as 
Qv HyerOe] ‘as (from time to time) ye 
might be led;’ ‘prout ducebamini,’ 
Vulg., scil. ‘pro nutu ducentium,’ Est. ; 
the imperfect with & marking the in- 
definite recurrence of the act; see 
Kihner, Gr. § 392%. 5, Winer, Gr. § 42. 
3. In passages of this nature (comp. 
Mark vi. 56, Acts ii. 45, iv. 35) the act 
itself, as specified by the verb, is not 
regarded as contingent as to occurrence, 
but as modified only in regard of the 
time, manner, or circumstances of 
taking place, according to the particle 
with which the & is associated: see 
Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 145, and comp. 
Hermann, Viger, No. 285. In both 
&yeoOa and amdyeoOu there is a plain 
reference to the agency of the devil, 
whether directly, or as manifested in 
the odpé (Gal. v. 17): the sons of God, 
on the contrary, are drawn by the 
blessed and opposing Power; comp. 
Rom. viii. 14, Gal. v. 18. It has been 
suggested by Fritzsche and others that 
&y is not an independent particle, but 
is a part of the compound anyeode. 
This is possible, but not probable, as 
there would be no real contextual sig- 
nificance in the compound, and the 
‘happen to be’ (not without its force) 
of the &yeo@a necessarily obliterated. 

3. 816] ‘ On which account, Wherefore ;? 
scil. in consequence of your having 
been, previously to your conversion, 
thus led away to dumb idols, and so, 
by the very nature of the case, ignorant 


234 1 CORIN 


TOL ANS. Cuap. XII. 3. 


3 O10 yvwpifm viv OTe ovdels ev IIvedpats Ocod Aardav Aéyer 


*Avddewa “Incovs, Kal ovdels 


> WV > A . / 
et un ev IIvevpate ayio. 


Svvatat eimeiy Kupios *Inoods, 


3. "Avdbeua "Inoois ... Kips Inoots] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Weste. 


and //ort, in each case on nearly the 
ating, authority: Mec., "Avabeua “Inoody 


of spiritual gifts and manifestations ; 
the 6:6 (‘propter quod,’ Clarom.) intro- 
ducing, with a somewhat close connec- 
tion (‘aptius duas res conjungit,’ Klotz, 
Devar. Vol. I. p. 173), the solemn dis- 
closure that follows, as rendered 
absolutely necessary from their, so to 
say, congenital ignorance of td 
mvevyatixd. On the use of 8&6 in St. 
Paul’s Epistles, see notes oz Gal. iv. 
31. The connection between this 
verse and the preceding has been very 
variously stated by different expositors, 
but too often under the influence of 
some special interpretation of the ra@v 
mvevuatin@y of ver.1. To discuss them 
is profitless. If it be correct that ray 
myevwatikay is neuter, and that, with 
the inclusive nature of the neuter 
plural with the article (‘res spirituales ;’ 
see Kiihner, Gr. § 403, rem. 2), it refers, 
not merely to speaking with tongues 
but to the various spiritual gifts speci- 
fied in this and the two following 
chapters, then the general connection 
cannot correctly be made to involve 
more than has beenstated. Theodorus 
(Mops.) has nearly stated the whole 
matter when he thus simply para- 
phrases ; 0éAw Suas Kal Tay mvevmariKay 
Thy 


Botrouat 1 kad ep) TovTwy eimeiy. 


tdiw ore 
If he 
had added ipiy, Gre pice: ayvovow, he 
would have covered the whole ground. 
For a brief statement of the various 
views of the connections that have 
been advanced, see De Wette and 
Meyer 7x oc. év IIvedpare 
Ocod AaAayv] ‘speaking in the Spirit of 
God,’ z.c. in the sphere and element, as 


xapioudtwy eidevan 


same, and that very clearly preponder- 
... Kdpiov ’Inoobr. 


it were, of the eternal Spirit, and as 
generally under His influence; comp. 
Matt. xxii. 43, Rom. viii. 9, 15, Eph. vi. 
18, al. On this familiar use of the 
preposition in the N. T., especially as 
seen in the forms év Kupiw or év Xpior@, 
comp. notes oz Efh. iv.1. We may 
apparently rightly distinguish between 
passages like the present, where the 
idea of the surrounding and pervading 
element is the primary thought, and 
those in which instrumentality (Rom. 
vili. 13), or mediating influence (Acts. 
xxi. 4), or direct agency (Luke ii. 26) is 
intended to be more particularly 
brought into prominence. In the two 
latter cases, as we might expect, the 
definite article (of which in passages 
referring to the blessed Spirit due note 
must be taken) is commonly inserted. 

On the distinction between Aadrew 
(‘vocem ore mittere’) and Aéyew 
(‘dicere,— with reference to the sub- 
ject-matter), here in juxtaposition 
(comp. Rom. iii. 19), see notes on Tit. 
Gem. héyer “Avdbepa "Incods] 
‘ Jesus is anathema ;’ the blessed per- 
son bearing the adorable name of 
Jesus (Matt. i. 21)—the personal 
name which the hapless blasphemer 
would naturally utter—is anathema, 
ze. accursed; see notes oz Gal. i. 8. 
This blasphemous utterance would 
mainly be that of the Jews (comp. Acts 
xiii. 45, xviii. 6) ; ‘faciebant gentes, sed 
magis Judzi,’ Bengel. This is the 
criterion on the one side,— whosoever 
so speaks, speaks not in the Spirit of 
God. In the clause that follows, which 
is a little differently worded, viz. ‘Vo 


Cuap. XII. 3, 4. 


There is diversity in gifts, 
but unity in their source 
and their purpose. 


man is able (of himself; it was the 
voice of faith) fo say Jesus is Lord, the 
criterion on the other side is given, 
‘whosoever so speaks, can only so 
speak in the Holy Spirit. Hofmann 
in effect inverts the first clause, re- 
garding the words rather as supplying 
a reassurance than merely a criterion,— 
‘do not be disquieted about these 
utterances ; whosoever speaks in the 
Spirit never utters the first words, and 
whosoever utters the second can only 
do so in the Spirit.’ The above expla- 
nation, however,— that a criterion is 
given, first on the negative, and then 
on the positive, side, is simpler and 
more natural: compare the similar, but 
more precisely stated criteria in 1 John 
iv. 2, and the comments of Origen 
(Cramer, Ca¢ez) on this place. On the 
teaching of the Spirit of God, see two 
good sermons by Farindon, Serm. L, 
LL, Vol. II. p. 525 sqq- (Lond. 1849). 


4-11. The variety but real unity of 
the spiritual gifts, and their true 
purpose. 4. Araipécers 82 
Xapirparwv] ‘7here are, however, 
divisions of gifts;’ the 5€ not being 
transitional, as in ver. 1, but slightly 
antithetical and corrective (‘vero,’ 
Vulg.), contrasting the d:0ipéoeis x.7.A. 
with the broad general characteristics 
above specified. The word 8:alpeois 
(a drat Acyduevoy in the N. T.) may 
mean either (a) divisions, distributions, 
‘divisiones.’ Vulg. Syr. (comp. Copt.), 
with reference to the fact of one gift 
being given to one, and one to another 
(comp. Aith., which, however, only 
paraphrases), or, more derivatively, (4) 
differences, ‘ distinctiones,’ Beza, with 
reference to the quantitative (Chrys., 
Theoph.) or qualitative distinctions of 
the gifts zzter se, and the different 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


235 


4 Avapécets 5€ yapioudtwy ciciv, To 8é 


classes into which they might be 
grouped; comp. Ezra vi. 18. Both 
meanings are lexically tenable (see 
examples in Steph. 7hesaur. s. v.) : the 
former, however, is distinctly to be pre- 
ferred on account of the use of the 
verb Siaipety in ver. 11: comp. Heb. ii. 
4, TIveduaros ayiov pepicuots. The 
Apostle is not dwelling on the differ- 
ences of the gifts, but on the varied 
way in which the Spirit had vouch- 
safed to distribute them to individuals : 
‘summa huc redit, non ita varie di- 
visas esse fidelibus gratias, ut sint 
distractz,’ Calvin. The xapiouara, 
thus distributed, are the gifts ema- 
nating from the Holy Spirit (ver. 11), 
vouchsafed to individuals for the fur- 
therance of the well-being of the 
Church, and the development of the 
spiritual life: see Rom. xii. 6, where 
the Apostle specifies four of these 
gifts of grace. Inthe early Church, as 
this and the following chapters very 
clearly indicate, these blessed gifts 
appear to have had more of an im- 
mediate nature and character; in the 
succeeding ages, including our own, 
they have assumed more of a mediate 
nature, and, though not one whit less 
real, silently disclose themselves in 
the varied evolutions of the spiritual 
life ; see Schmid, 3767. Theol. § 47, p. 
287 sq. (Transl.), and Weiss, S767. 
Theol. § 92. 6, Vol. 1. p. 33 (Transl.). 
On the use of the word in the N. T., 
see Cremer, Wéorterb. s. v. p. 581, and 
comp. notes oz 1 Zim. iv. 14. 7d 
8¢ abrd [Ivetpa] ‘ dat the same Spirit ;’ 
‘unus Spiritus fons omnium donorum,.’ 
Calvin. That the reference is here to 
the blessed Person of the Holy Ghost, 
and, in the verses fo'lowing, to the Son 
and to the Father, cannot possibly be 
denied by any consistent interpreter: 


1 CORINTHIANS: 


936 Cuap. XII. 4-6. 


avTo IIvedpua: Kat Swarpéces Siaxovidy ciciv, Kal 6 avTos 
Kupuos: ® Kat diarpécers evepynudtov eiciv, 6 5€ avtos eds 6 


6. 6 5& aids @eds] The reading is here not perfectly clear. As regards the 
insertion of éor: (Rec. only; but with B) between aités and @eds, there does not 
seem to be any reasonable doubt, the omission resting on very greatly prepon- 
derating authority. There is, however, some doubt as between the text and 
the reading of Westc. and Hort (with margin), viz. nad 6 aitds @eds, with BC; 
37; Orig. On the whole as 6€ seems to rest on clearly preponderating, though 
(as to order) divided authority, and as the «af may be due to an assimilation 
to the coresponding clause in verse 5, we adopt the reading of the text with 


Lachm., Tisch., Treg. (with margin), and Rev. 


see the lucid comments of Photius in 
Cramer, Caten. (in Joc.) p. 229, and 
compare Cyril (Hieros.), Catech. XVI. p. 
203 sqq. In this verse it may be ob- 
served that we have the antithetical d€ 
in the second member of the verse 
rather than the ral of the following 
verse, the object of the inspired writer 
being here, where the tenor of the 
words seems more particularly to re- 
quire it, to mark the ‘ antitheton inter 
unum fontem et flumina multa,’ Bengel ; 
comp. ver. 7. On this and the follow- 
ing verses see Bp. Andrewes, Sevm. 
Xv. Vol. 111. p. 377 sqq. (A.-C. Libr.), 
the Convocation Sermon of Bp. Hall, 
Works, Vol. XI. p, 7 sqq., South, Serm. 
III. p. 30 sqq. (Lond. 1843), and on the 
great dogmatical importance of this 
and the following verses, Dorner, Chr. 
Doctr. § 28. 2, Vol. 1. p. 354 (Transl.). 
5. Statpéoets Staxoviov] ‘divisions of 
ministrations ;’ the term S:arovia not 
being here limited to the Ae:roupyla of 
men specially ordained to it (Theod.; 
comp. Estius 7 oc., who also includes 
that of women, such as Phoebe, Rom. 
xvi. 1), but, as the broad and general 
nature of the context seems to suggest, 
including all forms of ministration, of 
whatever character, that tended to the 
good of the Christian body, whether 
regarded individually or collectively. 
It may be admitted that diaxcovia gene- 
rally refers in the N.T. to ‘spiritual 


service of an official nature’ (see notes 
on Eph. iv. 13), but this would seem to 
be due more to the context than to the 
word taken by itself. On the use of 
the word in the N.T., see Cremer, 
Weorterb. s.v. p. 179 sq. Kal 6 
avtés Kipwos] ‘and the same Lord:’ 
‘a quo, ut Deo, et per quem, ut homi- 
nem, illa omnia conferuntur,’ Estius. 
In this verse the second member does 
not stand, as in verses 5 and 7, in any 
antithetical relation to the first mem- 
ber, but states a broad spiritual truth, 
as it were side by side with that enun- 
ciated in the first member; ‘there is 
a variety of ministrations, azd (as a 
further and appended truth) He to- 
wards whom all these administrations 
ultimately point, and whom they are 3 
all intended to glorify, is truly one and 
the same Lord:’ see Hofmann 77 doc. 

6. Statpéoas evepynpatarv] ‘divisions 
of workings, ‘divisiones operationum,’ 
Vulg.; the évepynuata being here the 
effects (‘effectus,’ Grimm), results, and 
outward manifestations of the inwork- 
ing power,—not simply synonymous 
with the xapiowata (Theod., comp. 
Chrys.), but the practical exhibitions 
of that same divine évepyera from which 
xXapiopara, Siaxovla, and éevepyhuara all 
alike emanated; comp. ver. 11. The 
nature of the évepyfjuata has been va- 
riously specified by expositors (wonder- 
workings, miraculous healings, etc.), 


Cuap. XII. 6-8. 


evepyav TA TavTa év TaoW. 


lal ’ \ \ / 
tov IIvevparos mpos To cupéepov. 


but, as in the case of Siaxoviat, is ob- 
viously general and inclusive. In 
regard of the lexical use of the word, 
Cremer pertinently cites Diod. “st. 
IV. 51, Tav 8& evepynudtav bmtp thy 
avOpwrivny piow pavévtav. fC) 
8t airds @eds .7.A.] ‘but the same 
God who works all these (workings) in 
ail ;’ statement in an antithetical form, 
as in ver. 5, of the oneness of the 
blessed Inworker as contrasted with 
the variety of the operations; the re- 
lapse into the antithetical form har- 
monizing with the tenor of the verse 
in which évepyhuara and 6 évepyor form 
a kind of natural contrast. The ra 
mavta refer to the various forms of 
manifestation, and the maow to those 
in whom they are displayed. On the 
instructive aspects of the Trinitarian 
doctrine which these verses disclose, 
see Chrys. 77 loc., and Cyril on ver. 7 
(Cramer, Catez.). 

7. ekdorw St Sorat «.t.d.] ‘ But to 
each one is given the mantfestation of 
the Spirit with a view to profiting:’ 
antithetically appended statement of 
the ultimate purpose of the distribu- 
tion; the primary emphasis resting on 
the mpds 7d cuudépor, and the secondary 
emphasis on the éxdorw (expanding the 
maocw of ver. 6) did0Ta, as specifying 
the manner in which the purpose was 
worked out. This cupdpepov was not 
merely in regard of the individual (rd 
AvoireAovv éxdore, Theod.; compare 
Chrys., Theoph.), but of the commu- 
nity; see ch. xiv. 12, and the comments 
of Bp. Sanderson, Servm. 1. (ad 
Clerum), p. 54 sq. (Lond. 1686); see 
also Harless, Chr. Ethics, § 43, p. 354 
sq. (Transl.). What was given (the 
significance of this word must not be 
left unnoticed ; see Sanderson, /. c.) was 
| havépwors Tod [Ivedparos, which may 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


237 


Téxact@ 6€ didotas » pavépwors 


8 we \ ns \ la) fi 
@ ev yap Sia tod IIved 


mean either (az) the manifestation of 
which the Spirit was the agent (gen. 
subject) ; see ch. ii. 4, and notes 77 Zoc. ; 
or (6) the manifestation (in outward 
act of the inworking Spirit, tod Tvev- 
patos being the gen. odjectz; see 2 Cor. 
iv. 2, TH pavepdoe THs aAnOelas, and 
comp. Winer, Gv. § 30. I. a, Kihner, 
Gr. § 414.1 sq. In such cases of am- 
biguity we can only be guided by the 
context; and this, in the present case 
(contrast ch. ii. 4), seems in favor of 
(4), the manifestation outwardly of 
that which was working within (pavé- 
pwow de Tveduatos Ta onucia adel, 
Chrys.) being here the prominent 
thought: consider also the 6607 a, which 
seems to favor the same view (comp. 
Theod.) and certainly obviates the 
objection that the human actor would 
thus have too much assigned to him. 
Tpds TO TuMdepov] ‘wth a view to 
profiting, ‘ad utilitatem’ Vulg.; the 
preposition having here its general 
meaning (when used figuratively) of 
‘ethical direction towards’ (Winer, Gr. 
§ 49. h), and marking the design and 
direction of the will of the actor: see 
cha x. 19, 2) Cor xto, 0) bet. ive te, and 
comp. Bernhardy, Syzz. v. 31, p. 265, 
Rostu balm; eZeceSuive I, 2) Voli: 
Pp. L0S7- 

8. @ piv yap K.t.A.] ‘ or to one as 
given through the Spirit:’ elucidatory 
statement of the éxdorw 5¢ Sidora: of 
the preceding verse, the ydép here having 
more of its exp/anatory than its purely 
argumentative force, and serving to 
introduce the expansion into details 
which follows. On the pure explana- 
tory use of ydp, see notes on Gal. ii. 6, 
and on this more mixed use, notes o# 
1 Thess. ii. 1, and o2 Gal. iv. 22. 

In regard of the enumeration of the 
Spiritual gifts in this and the two 


238 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


CuapP. XII. 8, 9. 


patos Sidotat Noyos codias, dAXw Sé AOYOs yvooews KaTAa TO 
avto [Iveipa, ° érépw riotis év TH aitd TIvevpatr, addr 6é 


9g. Erépw] So Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly preponderating 


authority: Rec. adds 8¢€; Lachm. encloses in brackets. 


év) TIvevpati] So 


Lachm., Tisch. Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on good external authority, 
though small in amount, but on very clear internal considerations: Rec., air@ 


Tvevuart. 


following verses, various arrangements 
have been proposed, the most plausible, 
perhaps, of which is that of Meyer, al., 
according to which we should here 
have three classes marked off by the 
érép in ver. 9, and the érépw in ver. Io. 
The intellectual gifts would thus form 
a first class; gifts depending on faith 
and its manifestations, a second class; 
and those connected with tongues, a 
third. It may be doubted, however, 
whether this can really be relied on, and 
whether the first érépw really means 
more than ‘a third,’ one different (see 
notes o7 Gal. i. 6) from the other two 
(Hofmann), and the second érépw, one 
different from each &AAw of the four 
that had preceded. If we are to adopt 
any classification at all, it must be that 
which is on the very surface,— accord- 
ing to which the three, partly intellec- 
tual, partly spiritual, xap{ouara are first 
mentioned, each being defined by a 
reference to the eternal Spirit, and next 
(the #AA@ indicating a fresh start), in 
two pairs, the four principal (so to 
say) concrete manifestations of the one 
thus inworking Spirit; the gifts of 
tongues and their interpretation being 
subjoined as a concluding, and some- 
what more novel form of manifesta- 
tion. We now proceed to the details. 

Asyos codplas] ‘the word of wisdom ;* 
the gen. being the gen. of the (so to 
say) ethical content; see 2 Cor. vi. 7, 
Eph. i. 13, 1 Thess. ii. 5, and comp. 
Scheurlein, Syzfax, 12. 1, Hartung, 
Casus, p. 21, Kiihner, Gr. § 402. ¢. 
On the close connection between this 


gen. and the gen. of the quality, see 
notes oz 2 Thess. ii. 7. Rumpel in his 
very interesting and instructive Caszs- 
lehre (p. 209 sq.) regards all these dis- 
tinctionsas untenable. That they may 
be to a certain extent artificial is not 
denied ; but that they help to clearness 
and precision of thought is so certain 
that they are rightly maintained in all 
the best modern grammars. 

On the distinction between codia (the 
more general) and yv@ois (the more re- 
stricted), see notes oz Col. ii. 3. 

Aédyos yvadorews) ‘the word of knowledge,’ 
— the word of which the ethical con- 
tent is ‘knowledge,’ z.e. that faculty 
by which the mind takes full and 
intelligent cognisance of the object 
presented to it : comp. Hofmann zz Joc. 
The distinctions between this and the 
preceding expression, drawn by exposi- 
tors from Chrysostom downwards, are 
as varied as they are numerous (for a 
few of these see De Wette 27 oc.) : this, 
however, is perhaps all that can be 
said, that Adyos coguas is the higher gift 
of the two (it was given through the 
blessed Spirit as the medium), and as 
such specified first in the enumeration: 
comp. Chrys., Theod., al., and the good 
note of Bengel 27 oc. Kata TO 
atts IIvetpa] ‘according to the same 
Spirit, through which the Adyos codias 
was imparted: the preposition here 
marking, with its usual and proper 
force, the accordance with the dis- 
posing will of the blessed Spirit (Winer, 
Gr. § 49. d. [a]), and presenting, as it 
were, another aspect of the divine 


CuaP. XII. 9, 10. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


239 


7: \ 
xaplopata iawatav év TO évi TIvevpati, ddd Sé evepyjwata 


duvapewv,  aAXrRw Tpodyteia, dArAw Siakpicers TVEvWATwY, ETEPH 


10. HAAw mpopyTtela, AAW Siaxpicets mv.] So Lachm., Treg., on what seems 
to be slightly preponderating authority: Rec., Tisch., Rev. add dé after &AAg; 


Westc. and Hort retain, but in brackets. 


étépw] So Lachm., Tisch. 


Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on more clearly preponderating authority: Lec. 


étépw dé. 


agency: comp. Rom. xv. 5, 2 Cor. xi. 
17, and see Bernhardy, Syzz7t. v. 20. 4, p. 
239, 241. 

Q. érépw trlotis K.T.d.] ‘0 another (a 
third ; comp. notes on ver. 8) faith in 
the same Spirit:’ not ‘faith’ in its 
usual sense (‘fides salvifica’), nor any 
intense form of such (comp. Meyer), 
but as the whole context seems to 
suggest, a ‘ wonder-working faith ’ (ch. 
Si) 2,. Matt. xvii) 20, xxi. (21); see 
Theod., Chrys.), a faith, closely allied 
to the will-power (Hofmann), in God’s 
merciful pleasure to bring about that 
to which the movement of the will is, 
under his guidance, directed; comp. 
Bengel zz Zoc.— who, however, seems 
reluctant to admit the partial distinc- 
tion in kind which the above interpre- 
tation appears to involve, and Cremer, 
Weorterb. s.v. p. 488. On the view 
thus taken of miotis in this passage, 
see Suicer, Zhesaur. Vol. Il. p, 727. 
This faith is évt@ atto IIvedpari, in 
the sphere of, and with the help of, the 
Spirit ; see notes on ver. 3; and comp. 
Winer, Gr. § 50. 6. Xaplopara. 
taparev] ‘ gifts of healing,’ scil. gifts by 
which healings are effected (7d @epa- 
mevely Tagay vocoy Kal Tacay padakiay, 
Theoph.), the genitive being a kind of 
genitive of the ‘principal constituent’ 
(Bernhardy, Syzz. 111. 44, p. 161), and 
so of the resultant effect. These ef- 
fects might be of a more directly 
miraculous (Acts iii. 6, iv. 20, v. 16, 
comp. Mark xvi. 18), or of a more me- 
fiately miraculous nature, ze. when 
natural means received a special and 


supernatural blessing; comp. James v. 
14. The plural marks the different 
varieties of healings; one having the 
power of healing one kind of disease, 
another of another kind. For ex- 
amples of this use of the plural, see 
Kiihner, Gr. § 348. 3. ¢. All these 
gifts were in the sphere of, and by the 
working of, the one blessed Spirit who 
is the causal fountain of all. 

10. évepynpata Suvdpewv] ‘ workings 
of miracles ;’ inward workings (ver. 6), 
of which the outward manifestations 
(comp. Mark vi. 14) are miracles, the 
genitive being similar to that in ver. 9, 
but more distinctly under the general 
category of gen. odjectz ; comp. Winer, 
Gr. §30. 1.a. The miracles were not 
confined to healings, as in the pre- 
ceding clause, but were of a more in- 
clusive nature, whether disciplinary 
(Acts v. I sqq., Vii. 24, xiii. 11), or gen- 
eral (Acts v. 12, xxviii. 5), extending 
even to the raising of the dead (Acts 
ix. 40). The ‘giving over to Satan’ 
(ch. v. 5, I elim. i. 20) in part belongs 
to these évepynwara, its true meaning 
being not only excommunication, but 
also the supernatural infliction of some 
bodily disease; see notes oz 1 Zim. 
Lie tmpodytela] ‘prophecy ;’ not 
merely in the sense of 4 Tv weAAdrvTwr 
mpocayédpevots (Theod.), but, as very 
clearly shown in ch. xiv. 3, 24, 25, 30, 
inspired utterance, whether for general 
edification, consolation (ch. xiv. 3), 
conversion of the unbelieving (ch. xiv. 
24), or the unsealing of all the secret 
fountains of the inner life (ch. xiv. 25) : 


240 


r CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. XII. to. 


yévn yAwooar, dAdrw Oé Epunveia yAwooav: “tavta Sé TadTa 


comp. notes on ch. xi. 4, 07 1 Thess. v. 
20, Hph. iv. 11, Cremer, Worterd. s. v. 
mpopnrns, p. 572, and for an early illus- 
tration of the office and characteristics 
of the mpophrns, the newly discovered 
Teaching of the Apostles, ch. XI. sqq.; 
see also Thorndike, Religious Assem- 
blzes, ch. V. Vol. 1. p. 382 sqq. (A.-C. 
Libr.) Staxploes mvevpdtov] 
‘discernings of spirits;’ the gift of 
discerning in each case (hence the 
plural) the true source whence the 
spiritual manifestations, as displayed 
in the foregoing mpopnreia, really ema- 
nated. It was a grace specially given 
by the Holy Spirit, which enabled him 
who had received it at once to discern, 
not only Tovds bird Tod evayTiov mvevpaTtos 
évepyouuevovs (Theodoret), but those 
who spoke from their own human 
mvevuata, Sixa tod Tvetuaros (Cyril): 
comp. I Thess. v. 21, and notes zz loc. 
This gift was not dependent on after- 
reflection, but showed itself in an in- 
tuitive and instinctive perception: see 
Hofmann 27 /oc. yévy yAor aay] 
‘ different kinds of tongues ;’ utterances, 
of various kinds (d:apopal, Theoph.), 
whether in languages not known to 
those who spoke in them (érépais 
yAdéooas, Acts ii. 4; comp. I Cor. xiv. 
21, 22), or in ecstatic forms of prayer, 
praise, and thanksgiving (ch. xiv. 14, 
17), so uttered as to need an inter- 
preter, — such interpreter being some- 
times the speaker (ch. xiv. 5, 13), 
sometimes one specially endowed with 
the gift of understanding the utterances 
(ch. xiv. 27). The utterances that are 
almost exclusively referred to in this 
Epistle appear to have been of the 
latter kind, viz. either vocal sounds 
wholly unintelligible to those who had 
not the gift of interpretation, or inco- 
herent and unconnected outpourings 
of the ordinarily known language, 


which, owing to the absence of the 
co-ordinating voids (ch. xiv. 14, 19) could 
not be understood. The tongue, moved 
by the Spirit, was that which, in such 
cases, alone was active; comp. Weiss, 
Bibl. Theol. § 92, Vol. 11. p. 34 (Transl.). 
Of this latter kind we have also ex- 
amples in the case of those in the 
house of Cornelius (Acts x. 46), and 
of the disciples in Ephesus (Acts 
xix. 6). We thus may clearly 
recognize in the N.T. two general forms 
of this mysterious and divine gift, — 
(1) the higher, that of speaking in 
languages known to the hearers, but 
unknown to the speakers, of which the 
only certainly recorded instance is 
Acts ii. 4 sqq.; compare, however, the 
promise in Mark xvi. 17, yAdooats Aa- 
Afhoovow Kavais; (2) the lowerand more 
common form, showing itself probably 
in many different kinds of manifesta- 
tion, which is mentioned here and 
elsewhere in the N.T. To deny the 
reality of the higher form (Meyer), or 
to explain it away (Cremer, Wérterd. 
p- 163 sq.), because in this Epistle the 
lower form is mainly referred to, or, 
conversely, to maintain that what is 
spoken of here is simply identical 
with the higher form (Chrys., Theod., 
Estius and Wordsworth, al.), is incon- 
sistent with the plainly different tenor 
of Acts ii. and 1 Cor. xiv. The 
literature on the subject is very copious. 
It may be enough to name the special 
treatises of Engelmann (1848), Frosch 
ammer (1850), Rossteucher (1850), ana 
Maier (1855), and the numerous and 
sometimes valuable articles in the 
Studien uw. Kritiken for 1829, 1830 
(Bleek), 1838 (Baur, Weeseler), 1839 
(Osiander, Kling), 1843, 1844 (Olsh., 
Bauer), 1849 (Reiche), 1860 (Weiseler). 
éppnvela yAwooav] ‘interpretation of 
tongues,’ — the power of conveying to 


Cuap. XII. 11, 12. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


241 


> Lal \ a \ X > X lal fal > 4 e / \ 
évepyel TO év Kai 70 avTo TIvedua, diarpobv idia ExdoT@ Kalas 


BovreTat. 


It is with these gifts as 
with the functions of 
the natural body. God 
has placed in his church 
men variously endowed. 


2 Kadarep yap To caya & éotw Kab 
MEAN TOAAA Exel, TavTAa S€ TA MEAN TOD 


12. moAAa exer] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, with very 


clearly preponderating authority: Rec., 2xet moAAd. 


The words tod évds 


are added by fec., after od@uaros, but rejected in all the above-mentioned edd. 


on greatly preponderating authority. 


others in intelligible language the 
meaning of the utterances. The trans- 
lation of Vulg. ‘interpretatio ser- 
monum’ (Clarom., ‘linguarum’) may 
have arisen from a desire to convey 
the idea that the yAéooa: were foreign 
languages: comp. ith. ‘linguarum 
regionum.’ In somecases the gift was 
possessed by the one who spoke with 
tongues (ch. xiv. 5, 13), but, as it would 
seem, less commonly. The patristic 
expositors, in accordance with their 
interpretation of yAécoa above, regard 
the gift as that of interpreting to others 
words spoken in a foreign language 
with which neither interpreter (Calvin) 
nor those to whom he interpreted were 
acquainted: comp. Wordsworth zz oc. 

Il. mdvra 8¢ ratta «.t.d.] ‘ But-all 
these worketh the one and the same 
Spirit ;’ antithetical transition from 
the enumeration of the varied gifts to 
the one blessed Giver, the two expres- 
sions of verses 8, 9, being here put in 
The 
Spirit is not here to be regarded under 
the aspect of the Ivedua Tod Tiod (Cyril), 
but, as in verses 4, 7 sqq., the Holy 
Spirit, in the usual acceptation of the 
words,— the eternal Spirit as now fully 
revealed, and as dwelling within both 
the Church and the individual; see 
Dorner. Chr. Doctr. § 129, Vol. Iv. p. 
160 (Clark). Siatpodv i8lq éexdorw] 
‘dividing severally to each man ;’ secon- 
dary predication (Donalds. Gr. § 441), 
by means of a participial clause, in 

31 


one,—7d év kal 7d adTd TMvedua. 


which the manner of the 7d évepyeiy is 
defined and elucidated. The blessed 
Spirit not only works in the Church 
generally, but in the individual (obs. 
idig Exdorw), and gives in each case the 
xdpicua that He willeth to give, and 
knoweth to be best: comp. Rothe, 
Theol. Ethik, § 269, p. 190 sq. (Transl.). 
The gift is vouchsafed idiq (‘seorsim,’ 
Grimm): the Vy. with the exception of 
Goth. [‘sundr6’] omit the word in 
translation. The form idfa (scil. 65¢) 
occurs frequently in classical Greek, 
but only here in the N. T. (comp. 2 
Macc. iv. 34, Joseph. Bed/. Vv. 4. 1), kar’ 
idiav (sc. 656, or xdépav) being the more 
usual form of expression. Kalas 
BovtXerat] ‘according as He willeth ;? — 
with distinct personal reference ; évepye? 
éamep kad 6 Marhp, Theoph.: comp. ver. 
18. The will of the Holy Spirit is that 
which determines the gift but as that 
will is moved by infinite wisdom, the 
capacity of each one for the particular 
gift is, by the very nature of the case, 
involved in the 7d d:aipety: ‘singulis dat 
singula, vel aliqua, varid mensurA,’ 
Bengel. There is, therefore, nothing 
in this verse inconsistent with the 
(ndotre ta xaplouata Ta pelCova of 
verse 31. 


12-30. L/lustration from the natural 
body of the spiritual truth that though 
the gifts may be varied, those endowed 
with them make up but one spiritual 
whole. 


242 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. XII. 12, 13 


, ” 4 ’ n A \ c r 
CMOLATOS TOANA OVTA &Y EoTW THA, OUTWS Kal oO Xpicros 


Beat yap év évi TIvedpats jets mavtes cis &v cdya éBar- 


12. Ka@dtep yap «.1.d.] ‘ Hor even as 
the body is one ;’ confirmatory illustra- 
tion (brdderyua eis ueoov péper, Chrys.) 
of the preceding statement that all the 
many gifts are bestowed by one in- 
working Spirit, the «a@dmep marking the 
thoroughly apposite nature of the com- 
parison: comp. the clearly similar pas- 
sage, Rom. xii. 4. On the use of this 
particle, see notes on 1 Thess. ii. 11, 
and on the meaning of the extensive 
mép (a shortened form of zrepi), the use- 
ful comments of Kiihner, Gr. § 510; 
comp. also Klotz, Devar. Vol. I. p. 

22, and Donalds. Crat. § 178. 
mavTa Sé K.T.A.] ‘and all the members of 
the body, though they be many, are one 
body :’ subjoined statement as to the 
MéAn modAd regarded in their totality, 
the € adding, with a slight contrast 
and antithesis, the further fact that 
though thus confessedly many they 
coalesced in making together one body. 
The participial clause is perhaps slightly 
concessive (et kal Siapopa exouev meéadn, 
Theod.), rather than merely circum- 
stantial (‘being many’), as thus serv- 
ing better to keep up the slight con- 
trast between the clauses: comp. I 
Thess. ii. 6, and notes zz Zoc., and on 
the varied uses in Greek of the parti- 
cipial member, Scheuerlein, Syztax, § 
46.2, sp: 486. ovTws Kal 6 
Xpurrds] ‘so also is Christ,,—in whom 
all form one mystical Body: comp. ver. 
27. The exact meaning of 6 Xpiords is 
not perfectly certain. The early ex- 
positors and most modern writers re- 
gard it as signifying ‘the Christian 
Church’ (rdv Xpiotdy av) THs exxanolas 
Té0eixe, Chrys.), as being the body of 
which He is the unifying Head 
(Theod.) ; comp. Eph. iv. 16. It would 
seem, however, in the present case and 
in the passage generally, that the idea 


of the head, as the unifying or repre- 
sentative element of the body, is not 
the prevailing thought, but even the 
contrary (for, in the comparison that 
follows, the head is only regarded as a 
part and a member; ver. 21), and that 
thus 6 Xpiords is here probably used in 
its more mystical sense as He in whom 
all believers are united,— the unifying 
personality; compare Bishop Hall, 
Christ Mystical, ch. 1. 2 The faithful 
are regarded as united with, and mem- 
bers of, Christ (ver. 27), and as forming 
by that union one body, viz. His body, 
the Church. What then is true of the 
body and its members, is true of Christ 
and the members which make up His 
mystical Body: comp. Rom. xii. 4, 
Eph. v. 29, and see Hofmann zx Joc. 
13. kal yap k.T.r.] ‘for verily in one 
Spirit were we all baptized into one 
body ;’ confirmation of the ofrws kal 6 


Xpiorés, and of the being in Him one © 


body, by the patent fact that they had 
all been baptized into one body: kat 
having here its ascezsive rather than its 
conjunctive force, and throwing an em- 
phasis on the év év) Tveduati; it was in 
one Spirit that they were baptized, 
and so incorporated in one body. On 
the two uses of ka) ydp, see notes on 
2 Thess. iii. 10, and the good comments 
of Kiihner, Gr. § 544. 3. 2. It is almost 
self-evident that éBarric@nuey is to be 
taken in its usual and proper sense, 
and that the év év) Mvetjpar: marks the 
holy and blessed element, as it were, 
iz which (not ‘ by which,’ Auth.; comp. 
Theod.) the outward baptism (comp. 
év #Sar:, Matt. iii, 11) took place. 
Without pressing the words as here 
specifying dogmatically the ‘ materia 
ceelestis’ (comp. Dorner, Chr. Doctr. 
§ 140. 4. obs., Vol. Iv. p. 293, Transl.), 
we must not fail to recognize the inti- 


. 


Cuap. XII. 13, 14. 


1 CORINTHIANS, 


243 


ticOnyev, eite ‘Tovdatou ere “EXXnves, cite Sotdou cite €AedOepor, 


Kat wavtes év IIvedwa érroticO@nuev. 


14 \ \ \ n > 
Kab yap TO OWUA OVK 


13. kal mdyres év Mvedua] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, 
on very greatly preponderating authority: ec. inserts eis after maytes, conform- 


ably to the first clause. 


mate connection of the Holy Spirit 
with Christian baptism which these 
words emphatically indicate, and the 
protest they involve against the mod- 
ern tendency to merge the initial gift 
in the supplemental. As Dorner truly 
says, ‘The gift of the Holy Ghost im- 
planting a new life, the germ or seed 
of a new man, is essential to Christian 
baptism,’ Chr. Doctr. § 138, Vol. Iv. 
p- 278; comp. Weiss, 426/. Theol. § 34, 
Vol. I. p. 455 (Transl.), and Newman, 
Serm. Vol. 111. p. 298 sqq. We may 
observe, lastly, that eis may here be 
taken in its ethical sense (é¢’ 6, Chrys., 
Theod.; ‘ut simus unum corpus,’ Ben- 
gel), but that it seems more consistent 
with the usage of Bamri(ec@a «is to 
maintain the simple and ordinary semi- 
local sense; they were baptized zzto 
one body, and so, by the very nature 
of the case, became one body by the 
blessed incorporation ; comp. Hofmann 
in loc. elite “IovSaiou x.7..] 
whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond 
or free ;’ the first and third efre mark- 
ing the separation of the clauses, the 
second and fourth, of the members of 
the clauses (comp. Winer, Gr. § 53. 6), 
—both clauses being dependent on the 
kal €Bartic@nuev. The Apostle states 
the great and fundamental truth, spec- 
ified also in Gal. iii. 28, and Rom. xii. 
8, that all distinctions, whether of na- 
tions or conditions, are done away 
with in this being baptized év év) Tyved- 
part : comp. Weiss, 761. Theol. § 92, 
Vol. 1. p. 31 (Transl.). On the rela- 
tion of the differences of vocation to 
this fundamental truth, see especially 
Harless, Chr. Ethics, § 43, p. 356 


(Transl.). Kal mdvres K.T.A.] 
‘and were all made to drink of one 
Spirit ;’ repetition, in a slightly altered 
and more emphatic form, of the truth 
specified in the first member of the 
sentence; the accusative being the 
accusative of what is now well called 
by Kdhner, ‘the explanatory object ;’ 
Gr. § 410. 6; see also notes ox Gal. vi. 
6, and Winer, Gr. § 32. 5. There can 
scarcely be any reasonable doubt that 
the reference is zof to the Lord’s Sup- 
per (Augustine, al.), but to that inward 
reception of the Spirit which was al- 
ways associated with holy baptism 
(Chrys. preferentially, and apparently 
Cyril in Cramer, Catfez., Theoph., al.) : 
two similitudes being in fact latent in 
the verse; the one, the outpouring 
of the Spirit, in which, as in a bath, 
the recipient is immersed ; the second 
(comp. John vii. 37 sq., cited by Cyril), 
in which he drinks of the living water. 
The use of the aorist, which appears 
to be very conclusive for the reference 
to baptism, cannot be explained away 
(comp. De Wette) as due only to a 
structural parity of tenses. The ref- 
erence to baptism is rightly maintained 
by Weiss, Bzb/. Theol. § 84, Vol. I. p. 
455 (Transl.), and is well elucidated by 
Hofmann. Wordsworth still advocates 
the reference to the Lord’s Supper, 
but no such expression as ‘ being made 
to drink of the Spirit’ is applied in 
Scripture to the Eucharist. 

14. kal yap Td capa K.T.r.] ‘ For the 
body also 7s not one member, but many ;’ 
elucidatory confirmation of the unity 
specified in ver. 13 by a recurrence to 
the same natural imagery as that in 


244 


éotuv ev pédAos GANA TOAAG. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. XII. 14-16. 


16’ Rav elan 6 trovs “Ort ovK etpb 


n , a ” 
NElp, OVK Eli EX TOV GwpuaTOS, OV Tapa ToDTO ovK ETL eK 


TOU TWMATOS. 


16 kal éav elmrn TO ods “Ort ovK eit dpOarp0s, ovK 


cil €K TOU GwpaTOS, Ov Tapa TOUTO OvK éoTW eK TOD oMpaTos. 


ver. 12. The use of kal ydp is simular 
to that in ver. 13, except, perhaps, that 
the ascensive force is not quite so 
sharply marked. In ver. 12 the Apostle 
simply touched on the general contrast 
tetween the one body and the many 
members. Here he returns to the 
simile to bring out (ver. 14, 20) the 
further illustration afforded by the va- 
varied offices and endowments of these 
many members. Various illustrations 
of this simile will be found in Grotius, 
Wetstein, and others; the most perti- 
nent are Livy, //zst. II. 32, Seneca, de 
Si gaey ili Be 

15. Srv ovdK eiwl xelp, K.7.A.] ‘because 
Lam not the hand (more literally, hand 
without any article) Z am not of the 
body ;’? demonstration (ver. 15-20), by 
means of illustrations drawn from the 
foregoing simile, of the unreasonable- 
ness, on the part of those less highly 
endowed, in being discontented with 
the Spirit’s apportionment of gifts 
(ver. I1),—in envying or begrudging 
those similarly (foot and hand, ear and 
eye, standing respectively on nearly the 
same level), but more highly, endowed 
(ver. 15, 16), — and in placing an undue 
value on some gifts in contradistinction 
to others, all being alike necessary and 
in accordance with the divine will (ver. 
17-20). The eivar ék tod odpuaros im- 
plies dependence on, in the sense of 
forming a constituent part of, the body, 
and involves the secondary and deriv- 
ative sense of the preposition; see 
notes 07 Gal. iii. 10, and comp. Winer, 
Gr. § 47, s.v. é. ov Tapa 
ToUTO K.T.A.] ‘7t 2s not, in consequence 
of this, not of the body,’ scil. this ut- 


terance on the part of the foot does 
not carry with it, or necessarily involve, 
a not belonging to the body; the 
mapdé marking primarily that which is 
alongside of, and thence, by an 
easy transition, that which becomes a 
concomitant, or even consequence 
(‘since this is so’), of the fact or 
principle referred to ; see Donalds. Gr. 
§ 485, Winer, Gr. § 49. g.c, and Hof- 
mann zz foc. The difference between 
this expression and 6a rodro, to which 
it closely approximates in meaning, is 
perhaps this,—that the latter marks 
more sharply and directly the ground 
or motive of the action, the former 
(wap tovro) more obscurely and in- 
directly,‘ non frofterea non est,’ 
Clarom. (Vulg., ‘ideo’). It is some- 
what doubtful whether this last mem- 
ber of the verse is to be taken interrog- 
atively or affirmatively. The interroga- 
tives of verses 17 and 18 might, at first 
sight, seem to suggest the former, but, 
on consideration, would really appear 
more naturally to follow quietly 
reasoned and affirmative clauses just 
preceding; observe verses 18 and 19. 
The analysis of the two negations (see 
Bengel 77 Zoc.) is also far more easy 
and natural in the affirmative, rather 
than in the interrogative, aspect of the 
sentence: see Winer, Gr. § 55. 9. a, 
Hofmann 77 Joc. 

16. kal éav K.T.A.] ‘and if the ear 
should say.’ In the former verse two 
analogous members were put in con- 
trast, here two organs of sense; éme:d} 
yap ov Tois opddpa smepéxovow, GAAG 
Tots 6Alyov avaBeBnkdot Pboveiv cidbaper, 
dia TodTo Kal aitds ofrw moreirar Thy 


Cuap. XII. 16-19. 1 CORINTHIANS. 945 


MW ef Gov TO cdua obOarpos, Tov 7 akon; El OdOV akon, Tov 
% Sodpnots; Bviv d8 0 Oeds ero Ta pwédn, Ev ExacTov avTar, 


a 


év TO capatt, Kabws HOEAncev. Mei Sé Hv Ta Tavta év pédos, 

18. viv] So Lachm., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort (with margin), on pre- 
ponderant authority: Rec., Tisch., vuvt. The less frequent use of vuy) dé than 
viv 5¢é, when the particle is used in logical sense (see Kiihner, Gr. § 498. 3), 
may be admitted to have some slight weight, as indicating the possibility of a 
correction (comp. verse 20), but it does not seem sufficient to counterbalance 


the amount of external preponderance. 


otyxpiow, Chrys.: so too Bengel zz Zoc., 
probably derived from the earlier ex- 
positor. 

17. eb Sdov Td copa SpOadpds] ‘/f 

the whole body were an eye, or, more 
exactly, eye (see ver. 15); ‘if all were 
eye. The Apostle now puts forward 
two hypotheses— each shown to be 
absurd by the associated question (ver. 
17, 19), and practically contravened 
by the divinely ordered, and actually 
existing, condition of things (verses 
18, 20),—to manifest the unreason- 
ableness of overvaluing any particular 
form of gifts, whether as possessed 
by themselves or as envied in others. 
The absence of the auxiliary (4v ; comp. 
ver. 19) gives the words more terseness 
and force. The term éc¢pyors (‘ odora- 
tus,’ Vulg.) is frequently used in 
classical Greek, and of course very 
commonly in the medical writers. 
Galen, in his special treatise on this 
sense, makes the following comment 
in his opening words; doppnow dvo- 
pdovew of “EAAnves ov pdvov thy did- 
yoow Tv douev GAA Kab Thy Sbvapw, 
Opp. Vol. V. p. 354 (Paris, 1679). 
The reading is not perfectly certain: 
Lachm., Treg., Westcott and Hort place 
7a in brackets, but the preponderance 
of authority seems sufficient to warrant 
our retaining the article without 
brackets. 

18. viv 8 6 Oeds «.7.A.] ‘But, as it 
is, God set (not ‘hath set,’ Auth., al.) 
the members, each one of them, in the 


body ;’ contrasted statement drawn 
from the actual facts of the case; the 
voy having here, as in ch. v. II, its 
logical and argumentative sense (‘rebus 
sic comparatis,’ ‘ut nunc est’), like the 
‘nunc’ in the ‘nunc autem’ (so Vulg., 
Clarom.) of the Latins; see Kiihner, 
Gr. § 498. 2, and notes oz 1 Thess. iii. 
8. In the aorist ero the reference 
seems to be to the original and primal 
constitution of things; hence the de- 
sirableness of preserving this in the 
translation. Chrysostom, with his 
usual acuteness, draws attention to the 
intercalated @y €xacrov a’tav: Kadas 
elmev, €kagT OV, em) TdvTwWY Td AUOLTEAES 
evdexvumevos. It seems best to place 
the second comma after atray (Westc. 
and fort), instead of after cduati, as it 
is usually found. Kalas nbeAnoev] 
‘even as He willedit:’ not merely a 
repetition of the ka@as BotAera of ver. 
Ir (De Wette, Alf., al.), but with a 
distinct reference to the divine w7// as 
originally manifested, and as condition- 
ing the whole matter. The distinction 
drawn between @¢Aw and BovAouat in 
notes on ch. vii. 7 would seem to de- 
rive some illustration from ver. 11 and 
the present verse. 

19. eb 8& Hv K.t.d.] ‘And if they all 
were one member ;’ a second and sup- 
plementary hypothesis shown at once 
to be absurd by the associated question, 
and (ver. 20) by the actual facts of the 
case; the 5¢ adding, with a slight con- 
trast between what it introduces and 


1 CORINTHIANS. CnaP. XII. 19-22. 


246 


mov To capa; pov dé modAAa pev wérAn, Ev OE cOya. 7 OD 
Suvarar 5é 0 dfpOarpos eimreiv TH yerpi Xpeiav cov ovK éya, 7 
marw % Kepari) toils toc Xpelav tuov ovK éyw* * andra 


21. 6 épbaauds] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on vastiy 


preponderating evidence: Rec. omits 4. 


The 5€ that just precedes it is some- 


what doubtful, as the external authority for its omission is of weight, and 


the insertion of the particle to facilitate connection not improbable. 
it is bracketed by Zachm. and Westc. and ort. 


Hence 
The nature, however, as well 


as the clear preponderance of the external evidence, leads us to retain it 


without brackets. 


what has just been said, a further 
demonstration of the unreasonableness 
of overvaluing any one form of 
spiritual gifts : see notes on ver. 17. 

20. vov StaodAa k.t.A.] ‘ Bri, as it zs, 
there are many members, yet but one 
body ;’ antithetical statement of the 
actual facts of the case, as in ver. 18. 
There is a little difficulty as to the 
reading. Lachmann places in brackets, 
and Westc. and Hort. in margin, the 
nev following the woAAd, but only with 
B D!, and some small amount of sup- 
plementary evidence. The insertion of 
the wev tosharpen the antithesis, always 
implied in this familiar form (see 
Kiihner, Gry. § 527. 3, and comp. 
Donalds. Crat. § 155), is certainly not 
improbable, but the external evidence 
in its favor would seem to be too strong 
to warrant the rejection of the particle. 
If retained, the insertion of ‘yet’ in 
the second member (Auth.) seems 
called for, so as to preserve, in this 
short sentence, the distinctiveness of 
the antithesis. Beza is thus right in 
changing the ‘unum autem corpus’ of 
Vulg., into the stronger and more 
contrastive ‘unum wero corpus:’ see 
Hand, Zursel/. Vol. I. p. 559, 566. 

21. Ov Stvarat kt.A.]‘ And the eye 
cannoe say to the hand, I have not need 
of thee:’ transition, by means of the 
partly connective, partly antithetical 5€ 
(almost here equivalent to our ‘fur- 
ther:’ comp. Klotz, Devar. Vol. Il. p. 


361, Kiihner, Gr. § 526. 2), to a new, 
but not dissimilar, case, viz. that of 
persons who prided themselves on their 
supposed higher gifts, and slighted 
those they deemed to be less highly 
endowed (ver. 21-26). The two cases 
in this verse are cases to which the ov 
duvarat is strictly pertinent: to see, and 
not to be able to reach what was seen 
and desired,— to will, and yet to be 
immovable, is incompatible with the 
very idea of the body, as implied in 
the preceding verse, and as a co-opera- 
tive whole. 4 wédww] ‘or again ;’ 
to cite another instance of a parallel 
nature: comp. the similar use of mdAw 
in making quotations, as in ch. iii. 20, 
Matt. iv. 7, v. 33, Rom. xv. Io, and, in 
regard of its use in the N.T., see 
Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 167. The de- 
rivative meaning, ‘e diverso,’ which it 
sometimes has in classical writers (see 
Palm. u. Rost, Lex. s.v. 2, Vol. I. p. 
636) is not found in the N.T., 2 Cor. x. 
7 being no example of such a usage; 
see Meyer zz Joc. On the early and 
primary meaning of the particle (‘non 
rursus sed retro’), see Ellendt, Zex. 
Soph. s.v. Vol. 11. p. 485. 

22. GAAG TOAAG pGAAov K.7.A.] ‘ Brut, 
on the contrary, much rather those. 
members of the body which seem (or, 
are deemed) to be (originally) more 
feeble are necessary,—and can never 
be dispensed with :’ the &AAd with its 
full separative and adversative force 


Cuap. XII. 22, 23. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


247 


TOAD padrAov Ta SoKodvTa pédAn TOU GwpaTos acbevécTepa 


e , > ns? 93 \ a § A > , 5 A 
UTTapNELW AVAYKALa EOTLY* KQb © OOKOULLEV aATlLLOTEpa ElLVaL TOU 


, 
THLATOS, TOUTOLS TLV TEpLacoTépay TepiTiMEweEV, Kal TA AoXN- 


(‘aliud jam hoc esse, de quo sumus 
dicturi,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. Il. p. 2) 
contrasting the true state of the case 
with the supposed case as implied in 
ver. 21, and the 7a doxodyra (comp. Gal. 
ii. 9) studiously marking that it was so 
merely in general estimation; Soxoder 
yap éAdrrova, ovk cio 5é, Theoph.; comp. 
Chrys. 7 doc. What particular mem- 
bers are alluded to under the ré& 6o- 
KodvTa MeAnN TOD gduaTos AobeverTEpa 
imdpxew, is somewhat doubtful. The 
MOAA®G paAdAov, independently of the 
nature of the case, precludes our refer- 
ring it to the hands or feet mentioned 
above. Nearly the same might be 
said of all the organs of sense, eye, ear, 
etc., the cbvious usefulness of which 
would hardly have admitted of their 
being thus classified ; consider, too, in 
regard of the eye, ver. 21. We must 
then conclude that these acdevéorepa 
uéAn refer generally to those more deli- 
cate portions of our bodily structure, 
external or internal, which, compared 
with the more obviously active and 
energetic members of the body, might 
seem to be somewhat feeble (observe 
the ‘comparativus molliens,’ Bengel) 
and weak; comp. Theodoret 77 Zoc., 
except that he unecessarily specifies. 
3. Kal & Soxotpev «.7.A.] 6 And the 
parts of the body which we deem to be 
less honorable ;’ the 5oxodpev, like the 
7a Soxotvra in the preceding verse, 
clearly implying that the distinctions 
alluded to were not due to anything in 
the nature of the parts, but simply to 
the general estimate of those who en- 
tertained the question: comp. Chrys. 
in loc. The Apostle here again stu- 
diously uses the comparative, as im- 
plying that 7d &rimov was merely rela- 


tive. The parts to which he was 
alluding were merely less honorable 
than other parts, not &tiwa in them- 
selves; comp. Matt. xi. 11, xviii. 1, 
Acts xvii. 22, al.. and see Winer, Gr. 
§ 35-4. obs. The parts here referred 
to must, from the context, be those 
parts on which clothing was worn, yet 
other than the Ta aoxnuova (‘ que vel 
ipso nomine “pudenda” ab omnibus 
vocari solent,’ Estius), which form an- 
other class: tpets rdkets év Tots Aeyoue- 
vois, Theoph. On the subject gene- 
rally, see the illustrative passage in 
Cicero, de Offic. I. 35. TOUTOLS 
Tibi K.T.A.] ‘these we clothe with more 
abundant honor ;’ the semi-technical 
verb mepitiBevai, in accordance with its 
prevailing use (see the numerous exx. 
in Steph. Zhesaur.s.v. Vol. VI. p. 955); 
pointing to the clothing customarily 
worn on these parts: comp. Matt. 
XXVii. 28, mepieOnkay aitw xAauvda KoKKt- 
vnv, and, for a similar metaphorical 
use, Esther i. 20, mepi0z)covor Timdy Tors 
avipdow éavtav: comp. Thucyd. Hist, 
IV. 87, tH wérAc Td KdAALOTOY Bvoua Tept- 
Getva, and the pertinent examples cited 
by Wetstein 27 /oc, TL ATX HOVa 
HpOv K.T.A.] Sour uncomely parts have 
more abundant comeliness ;’ the well- 
chosen words 7& doxhuova (‘que in- 
honesta sunt.’ Vulg., ‘quae pudoris 
sunt,’ Syr,), marking at once what the 
Apostle is referring to; comp. Rev. 
xvi. 15. The comment of Theod.- 
Mops. (Cramer, Cazez.) is worthy of 
citation: aoxhmova, ds mpos Thy Kowhv 
ow amongrd. hore tH wey pices ovK eri 
aoxnuovar eimep mepiccorépay exer Thy 
evoxnnootynv. The mepiocorépa eiaxn- 
foovyn points to the careful manner in 
which, though every other part might 


248 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


CuapP. XII. 23, 24. 


pova nuayv evoxnwootyny Trepacotépay Exel, 4 Ta be evoyjpova 


nav ov xpeiav eel. 


G\rAa 6 Oeos cuvexépacey TO cpa, 


24. borepouuévw] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly 
preponderating authority: Rec., botepovytt. 


be left bare, these parts would be cov- 
ered (‘ut membra que turpiter pate- 
rent, lateant honeste,’ Calvin), and per- 
haps also ‘non sine ornatu,’ Estius: 
comp. Chrys. zz /oc. Hofmann some- 
what singularly connects the pronoun 
with evoxnuoctvny as an emphatic 
prefix, the @ye having its derivative 
meaning of ‘involving,’ or ‘carrying 
with it’ (Heb. x. 35, 1 John iv. 18), 
and the juéy in the next verse being 
similarly connected with what follows. 
Such a connection has, however, no 
support whatever in any of the ancient 
Versions, mars the simplicity of the 
structure, and secures no exegetical 
advantage. 

24. Ta St evoxtpova K.T.r.] ‘but 
our comely parts have no need,’ scil. of 
any adornment (Clarom., Syr.), or, 
more simply, of anything (‘nullius 
egent,’ Vulg.), the context easily sug- 
gesting what is referred to. The 
punctuation adopted in the text, ac- 
cording to which the present clause is 
separated only by a comma from what 
preceded, but by a full stop from what 
follows, seems distinctly preferable to 
placing a heavier stop at the end of 
ver. 23, and making aAAd x.7.A. answer 
to the od xpelav €xex which precedes. 
The present clause completes, as it 
were, the description of the body and 
its parts: what follows is a new sen- 
tence explaining the deep principle that 
was really underlying the whole. 

GAAG 6 Ocds x.7.d.] ‘ Vea, God tempered 
the body together ;’ the addd introduc- 
ing in the form of a partial contrast, 
and a kind of fresh element in the 
case (‘aliud jam hoc esse, de quo 
sumus dicturi,’ Klotz), the true prin- 


ciple which dominated the whole: 
comp. Luke xvi. 21, in which the aad 
appears, somewhat similarly, to intro- 
duce a fresh picture (‘yea, even the 
dogs, etc.,’ Rev.), in slight but traceable 
contrast with what preceded. This 
usage seems to illustrate the truth of 
the remark, that GAAd and mAfv are 
sometimes very nearly allied in mean- 
ing ; see Kiihner, Gr. § 535. 6. 5, Winer, 
Gr. § 53; 7. 2, note. The verb ouve- 
képagey (‘contemperavit,’ Vulg.) occurs 
in Heb. iv. 2. It is of not unusual 
occurrence in classical writers (es- 
pecially in Plato), but more usually in 
the sense of mixing together specified 
elements. The idea in this passage is 
rather that of bringing a variety of 
parts into a harmonious whole. 

To torepoupévw K.T.A.] ‘eiving to that 
which suffereth lack more abundant 
honor ;’ circumstantial participle, speci- 
fying that which accompanied and was 
contemporaneous with the ouverépacer, 
—‘ giving, while thus tempering, etc. ;’ 
see Bernhardy, Syzt. p. 383, Hermann, 
Viger. No. 224, and notes oz Efh. i. 9. 
In all these cases the participle com- 
pletes, as it were, the picture, adding 
the circumstances and details (some- 
times even the really main matter) 
necessary for a clear perception of the 
whole; see Kiihner, Gr. § 490. I, 2. 
The middle icrepouméevw (though it is 
often hard to say whether it be a 
middle or passive; see Donalds. Gr. § 
432, Kiihner, Gr. § 376. 4) is perhaps 
here used, in accordance with the sort 
of personification running through all 
this group of verses, as marking the 
subjective feeling of the part or mem- 
ber (that not only lacked, but /e// its 


Cuap. XII. 24-27. 1 CORINTHIANS. 


249 


el e , / Py \ ty 95 ivf Nos / 3 
TO VoTEpOUpEVM TEpLacoTepay Sovs TiunV, * iva ny TXiopa ev 
T@ TWOLATL, GNA TO AUTO UTép GAAHWY pEPLLVaTLY TA pméEAN. 
26 \ ” / A I / 4 \ f 7 

Kal €liTe TaoXEL EV pédNOS, GUUTTaTYEL TdVTA Ta ped: ElTE 
dofuverat péros, cuyxyaipe mavtTa Ta médn. 7 hwels dé eaote 


26. Sotd¢erat wedos] So Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on authority 
[A B&*] which, combined with the probability of assimilation to the first 
member of the verse, seems clearly to preponderate: Rec., Lachm. insert év 


before méAos. 


lack) a little more forcibly than the 
totepodvt: of LRec.; see, on this use, 
Donalds. Gr. § 432. 2. 66, Kiihner, Gv. 
§ 375, 4. What the mepiocorépa Tinh, 
here mentioned, is, may be slightly 
doubtful. It may refer to the share 
the ta doxhuova had in reference to 
the primal command of Gen. i. 28 
(Hofmann), but much more naturally 
refers to the details in ver. 23, which 
are here represented as fore-ordered in 
the original otykoacis; ‘faciunt enim 
homines quodam instinctu nature, 
cujus Deus auctor est,’ Estius ; comp. 
Calvin 27 loc. 

25. tva ph Wy oxlopa «T.A.] ‘that 
there should be no schism (or disunion) 
in the body:’ purpose (8:4 ti; Chrys.) 
of the cuvexépacev x.7.A., viz. that there 
should be no such want of union as 
alluded to in ver. 21. Had it been 
otherwise either in the original consti- 
tution of the body or the instinctive 
feelings of man, the dudvo1m among the 
members never could have been main- 
tained: comp. Chrys. zz oc. 

GANG TO adTd K.T.A.] ‘Sut (on the con- 
trary) should have the same common 
care one for another ;’ the 7d av’rd, as 
its position implies, being emphatic, 
and receiving its illustration from the 
brép dAAHAwY which follows: the mem- 
bers were all to have a common inter- 
est and care, and that 7d ard wepimvay 
was to be for the good of one another. 
The verb is here rightly in the plural, 
as the members are regarded in their 


32 


plurality and separateness; see Winer, 
Gr. § 58. 3. a, Kiihner, Gr. § 365. 4. 

26. Kal elre mdoXxe «.1.A.] ‘And 
whether one member suffereth, all the 
members suffer with it; or a member 
receiveth glory, all the members rejoice 
with it:’ further statement of the per- 
fect nature of the original evyxpaots; 
so completely was the divine purpose 
carried out, that not only was there 
this common care, one for another, but 
such a sympathetic interdependence, 
that what is felt by one member is felt 
by all. The term Sofdé¢era is appar- 
ently not to be limited to outward 
adornment but to be extended to every- 
thing — whether food, or outward ap- 
plication, or aught of a similar kind — 
that promotes and enhances the well- 
being of the member in question; see 
De Wette zz Joc. This interdepen- 
dence of the members is well illus- 
trated in the familiar parable of Mene- 
nius Agrippa (Livy, A/7s¢. 11. 32). and 
the sympathy of the whole body with 
the ailment of a part by Chrys. 7 Zoc., 
and, briefly, but pertinently, by Plato, 
Republ. p. 462, where the sympathy of 
the whole body with a hurt finger is 
alluded to: compare also the illustra- 
tions in Wetst. 27 loc. 

27. tpets 8é éore K.t.A.] ‘Vow ye are 
the body of Christ:’ transitional appli- 
cation to the readess; verses 28-30 
supplying the illustrative details. The 
words must not be rendered (a) ‘a body 
of Christ’ (Baur), the idea of a plural- 


250 


capa Xpiotod Kai pérn &K pépovs. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. XII. 27-28. 


8 Kat ods ev Octo 6 Oeos 


3 lol - / lal > / if / f 
€v TH EKKANTLA TPWTOV aTrocTOXOUS, SevTepov Tpopytas, TpuTov 


ity of o@uara, which such a translation 
would involve, being obviously inad- 
missible,—nor even (4) a‘ Christ’s body’ 
(Ewald), as this throws the emphasis 
where it is not intended, céua and péan 
being clearly the prominent words,— 
but, ‘tie body of Christ’ (Copt.), the 
absence of the article being due either 
to the predicative form (see notes on 
ch. iii. 16, Madvig. Gr. § 10. 2), or per- 
haps, more probably, to the principle 
of correlation (see notes oz Eph. v. 8), 
which, especially in the case (as here) 
of a proper name, seems to account 
for the anarthrous form of the govern- 
ing noun: see the notes of Prof, 
Moulton on Winer, Gy. § 19. 2, and § 
20. 4. As a Church, the Corinthians 
were the body of Christ; as being that 
local organization under which the 
spiritual o@ua Xpictod was to find its 
appointed realization ; comp. the very 
similar form of words in ch. iii. 16, 
and notes zz Joc. 

kal pédy éx pépous] ‘and apportioned 
members of it ;’ scil. each one accord- 
ing to his own place and function; 
‘membra in loco vestro,’ Syr.; the é« 
here marking apparently the ideal 
place from which the matter was 
looked at, —‘ members from a fart of 
a whole point of view;’ see Winer, 
Gr. § 51.1.d. In ch. xiii. 9 the sense 
is simply ‘ in part ’ (‘ ¢hez/wezse,’ Meyer) ; 
here, however, the context seems to 
impart to the words the further idea 
of accordance with a standard (see 
examples in Kiihner, Gr. § 430. 3. g) 
and apportionment: they were not 
merely members without anything to 
distinguish one from the other, but 
had each their allotted place and func- 
tion in the body corporate. The Greek 
expositors see in the words a reference 
to the fact that the Corinthians were 


only a mépos Tijs mayTaxod Kemmevns ExKAN- 
otfas: such a reference. however, here 
has no bearing whatever on the con- 
text, which relates to the diversities of 
ministration in the Church generally. 
Equally remote from the real subject- 
matter is the thought which Hofmann 
finds in the words, — that the member- 
ship of individuals in Christ is only 
partial, and not completely manifested 
in any one. It is not the ‘quantum,’ 
but the ‘quale,’ that is here under 
consideration. 

28. Kal ods piv ero «.7.d.] ‘ And 
some God appointed in the Church, to 
wit, jirst apostles, secondly prophets, 
etc.:’ illustration of the foregoing 
clause by a reference to the divinely- 
appointed order in the Church gene- 
rally (hence the insertion of év 7H ék- 
kAnoia) the caf having a somewhat full 
force, —‘and, to make plain what I 
mean, etc.,’-—and subjoining the special 
and detailed to the brief and general 
expression which precedes: comp. 
notes oz Phil. iv. 12. The ods wep, it 
will be observed, has no member cor- 
responding to it, the Apostle (as he 
dictated) probably intentionally substi- 
tuting an arrangement in order of dig- 
nity for the mere enumeration which 
the first words would lead the hearer or 
reader to expect: see Winer, Gr. § 63. 
I. I, where anacolutha of a similarly 
intelligible nature are specified. The 
term damoorédaous here, as in the paral- 
lel passage, Eph. iv. 11, is used in its 
highest and most special sense, see 
notes zz Joc. In reference to mpophtas 
(preachers and expounders who spoke 
under the more immediate influence of 
the Holy Spirit), see notes oz Eph. iv. 
11, and above, notes on ch. xi. 4. 
tplrov Si8acKddous] ‘thirdly teachers ;? 
men who had specially the gift of &- 


Cuap. XII. 28, 29. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


251 


/ ” / ” ‘ > / > 
didacKdndovs, éreita Suvapels, ETEITA YaplowaTa laudaTwV, avTI- 


Anprpes, KuBEepyyjces, yéevn yAwooav. 


29 \ / ) , 
nN TayTes atrocToXo ; 


28. Greta xaplouata] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, 
with very greatly preponderating authority as regards the choice between the 
particles: Rec. eira; some authorities omit, but with very clearly preponderating 


authority against them. 


daxH, but who, probably, had neither 
the powers of spiritual utterance which 
distinguished the mpopfra, nor the par- 
ticular gifts of administration which 
characterized those afterwards alluded 
to by the term kuBepyfoes; comp. 
Acts xiii. 1, and see notes oz Zph. 
iv. II. éreta Suvdpes «.T.A.] 
‘then miraculous powers, then gifts of 
healing ;’ transition, probably for the 
sake of rhetorical force and variety, 
into abstract forms and specifications 
of the gifts, rather than of the persons 
who were endowed with them: con- 
trast Rom. xii. 6 sqq., where the change 
is exactly ine the converse direction. 
On the particular gifts here specified, 
see notes on ver. 9 sq. avtt- 
Afpes, KuBepvqareas] § helpings, govern- 
ings ;’ further specifications, but with- 
out any introducing particles, the strict 
order according to spiritual eminence 
probably not really extending beyond 
the didackdaAous. The term avtiAnuyis (in 
classical Greek ‘ apprehensio,’ whether 
with a physical reference,’ as in Xen. 
£q. 5.7, or a mental reference, as in 
Timzus Locr. p. too B) has here its 
post-classical meaning of Bofeta (Zo- 
nar., Phavor.; see Ecclus. xi. 12, li. 
7, 2 Macc, viii. 19, al., and Suicer, 
Thesaur. Vol. 1. p. 376), and in the 
plural (as here) denotes ‘helpings’ 
(‘ opitulationes,’ Vulgate ; adjutoria,’ 
Clarom.; ‘auxilia,’ Copt.), or, passing 
into the concrete, ‘helpers’ (Syr.), 
—of which those connected with 
the visitation of the sick (Chrysos- 
tom; the verb is thus used Acts 
xx. 35), and, perhaps also, deacons 


(Beza) would furnish obvious illustra- 
tions. The next term k«vBepyjces in 
its derivative sense of ‘ governings’ 
(Pind. Pyth. 10. 112, woAlwy kuBepvdctes), 
points probably to éricxomwo: and mpec- 
Bitepot, or, more generally, of mpoiord- 
Hevot (Rom. xii. 8), — those who were 
invested with administrative powers 
and authority : comp. moimeves, Eph. iv. 
II, and notes zz Joc. yéevn 
yAworoav] ‘different kinds of tongues :’ 
see notes on ver. Ic. Those who were 
endued with the power of speaking 
with tongues are placed last, —not, 
probably, with any intention on the 
part of the Apostle to reverse the judg- 
ment of the Corinthians in reference 
to this gift (Est.; see Chrys., Theod., 
al.), but simply, as in ver. 10, on ac- 
count of its exceptional character, 
which here naturally remanded it toa 
concluding place in the enumeration. 
29. p wavTes ArdoroAo K.t.A] ‘ Ave 
all apostles ? or, more exactly, ‘surely 
all are not apostles, with the desire of 
eliciting a negative reply; see Winer, 
Gr. § 57. 3. 4, Kihner, Gr. § 587. 11. 
If it cannot be said that this form of 
question zz al/ cases involves a negative 
reply (opp. to Hermann, Viger, No. 
252), yet, even in those cases where an 
affirmative reply might, at first sight, 
seem to be natural, the speaker really 
appears either to desire a negative an- 
swer, or to regard such an answer as 
probable: see Meyer on John iv. 509. 
In this and the following verse the 
Apostle confirms the statement of ver. 
27, that the Christians at Corinth were, 
like the members of the natural body, 


252 


tr CORINTHIANS. 


CuapP, XII. 29-31. 


\ / a \ / 4 % U / 
Li) TavTes TpodHrat; my TwavtTes SidacKaro ; 1) TavTes Suva- 


pews; un wavtes yaplowata éyovow tawatwy; py TavTes 
yh@oouts Nadovow; ju) Travtes Steppnvevovow ; *| Emrodte Sé 


Ta xapicoputa ta uellovas Kal étt Kal imepBomjy odov tu 


Selxvupe. 


31. welCova] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly 
preponderating authority: Rec., kpeitrova. 


members, each in his proper function 
and place, of the spiritual body. Hof- 
mann, in accordance with his interpre- 
tation of the éx uépous, appears to regard 
ver. 29, 30 as practically supplying the 
dé element to the uévy element of ver. 
28. The view is ingenious, but that 
on which it depends, —the particular 
meaning of éx uépovs,—does not seem 
in harmony with the foregoing context; 
see notes on ver. 27. py 
mares Svvdpes] ‘are all miracles?’ 
. scil. mzracle-workers, the abstract 
standing for the concrete, as in ver. 
28, and in the nominative, as the other 
substantives in the verse; so Syr., 
Vulg., and, very clearly Copt. To 
regard it as in the accusative, and as 
carrying before it an unexpressed éxou- 
ow (Meyer) is hard and unnatural. 

30. pi) wévres Seppnvetovow] ‘ do all 
interpret, scil, the utterances of those 
speaking with tongues. The compound 
form diepunvede (capnvitery, Hesych.) 
occurs six times in the N.T. (ch. xiv. 
5, 13, 27, Luke xxiv. 27, Acts ix. 36), 
but without any apparent real distinc- 
tion in meaning from the simple and 
more classical form €épunvedew (John i. 
43, ix. 7, Heb. vii. 2), unless it be that 
the compound, at any rate in this 
Epistle, marks a little more strongly 
the mental process involved. The ten- 
dency to compound forms without any 
apparent accession of meaning is a 
mark of ‘fatiscens Grecitas ;’ see notes 
on Gal. iii. 13. 

31. tndotre St w.7.X.] ‘But desire 


earnestly the greater gifts ;’ admonition 
suggested by, and contrasted with (6é), 
the tenor of the foregoing ; ‘each, it 
is true, cannot be all; but, for all that, 
show a steady (jAos (observe pres. 
imper.; mévete émOvuodvtes, Chrys.) for 
the greater gifts.’ The 6é thus ap- 
proaches somewhat nearly to a&AAd, but 
is maintained bythe writer, as intro- 
ducing more easily than the stronger 
particle the transition to ‘the more 
excellent way’ on which he is about to 
speak. On the stronger and weaker 
forces of this particle, see the good 
comments of Kiihner, Gr. § 526. 2. 
The verb (mAodv, here and ch. xiv. 1, 
39, appears to mark that earnest desire 
(crovdny amatet, Chrys.) with which 
each true servant of Christ should seek 
to qualify himself for receiving still 
greater gifts than he now may have: 
see Chrys. and Bengel 77 Zoc. 

Kal éru Kad’ drrepBoddy K.7.A.] ‘ard (in 
harmony with this counsel) show you a 


still more excellent way ;’ concluding 


‘words (opp. to Westc. and ort), intro- 


ducing the next subject; ei dvrws é9i- 
eobe, éyw judas em) radTa wodnynow mpobv- 
pws, Theod. The way to all higher 
gifts is the way of love; gifts, how- 
ever great, without love are nothing 
(Chrys.). There is some little dif- 
ference of opinion as to the grammat- 
ical connection, ér: being commonly 
associated with the preceding kai, in 
the sense of ‘moreover’ (meta TodTwy, 
Theoph.), and kaé’ tmrepBoany being 
joined with the verb (Grot.), or with 


CuapP. XII. 31-XIII. 1. 


If I lack love I lack 
eee Love is en- 
dued with every grace, 
and endureth forever. 


65dy Seixvumt (Hofmann). It can, how- 
ever, hardly be doubted that the én 
should be associated with the prac- 
tically comparative member ka@’ drepBo- 
Any (so rightly Rev., and apparently, 
Arm. [avauyel yeus]; see Kiihner, Gr. 
§ 549». 6), and that kaé” smepBoany is to 
be adjectivally connected with doy, — 
‘excellentiorem viam,’ Vulg., Syr. ; 
‘viam multo prastantiorem,’ Copt.: 
so also Chrys., odx a&mrAws 65dv, GAA Kab 
be dmrepBodrts, Kal Kow mao mpoketpe- 
vnv, and apparently the other Greek 
expositors. For this adjectival use of 
the adverb of degree, both with and 
without an associated article, see Kiih- 
ner, Gr. § 461. 6, and § 462.m; comp. 
also Winer, Gr. § 54. 2. 4, and Bern- 
hardy, Syzt. p. 338. 


XIII. Christian love ; its inward 
presence tnaispensable (1-3) ; tts charac- 
teristics (4-7); and eternity, while all 
else passes away (8-13). 

1. "Hav tats yAdooats K.t.A.] ‘Zf 7 
Should speak with the tongues of men 
and of angels:’ introduction to the 
subject by means of vivid assumptions, 
all opening the way to the declaration 
that without love all gifts are worth- 
less. The édv here, as usually, intro- 
duces an assumption of objective pos- 
sibility, associated with a reference to 
the future (Herm. de Partic. tiv, p. 95, 
Winer, Gr. § 41. 2. 4), thus differing 
alike from ef with the indic. (where 
the idea is simple condition), and 
from e with the optative (where 
the condition is merely supposed in 
thought) : see notes oz Gal. i. 8, 9. 
There is some little difficulty as to the 

’ meaning of yAéooats : it may mean ‘ar- 
ticulate forms of speech,’ ‘languages’ 
(Origen [Cramer, Cat.], Theoph., al.), 
but, when taken in connection with 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


258 


XIII. ’Eav tais yreéooas thy avOperrav 
AAG Kal TOV ayyédwv, ayarny Sé wh exo, 


the whole subject of the yAwooodadia 
in the Corinthian Church (see notes on 
ch.xii. 10), seems more naturally to mean 
‘utterances’ (gwvds, Theod.), whether 
in plain and articulate speech or other- 
wise,—the tav ayyéAwy being added 
ka? wmepBodnv,—‘and the utterances 
of angels, be those utterances what- 
ever they may :’ compare Hofmann zz 
Zoc. All the early expositors rightly 
call attention to the prominence here 
given to the yAdooais Aadeiv, as being 
that gift to which the Corinthians 
assigned the first place. 

ayamnv] ‘ove,’— as the context shows, 
—Thv tps tov TAnatov, Chrys. The 
rendering of the Vulg. is here ‘ caritas,’ 
though in a similar passage, Rom. xiii. 
Io, the term ‘dilectio’ is used. The 
rendering ‘caritas,’ however, occurs at 
least four times as frequently as that 
of ‘dilectio.” The term ‘amor’ occurs 
in 1 Pet. i. 22, and 2 Pet. i. 7, and in each 
case in connection with ‘fraternitas.’ 
The original word is not found in earlier 
Greek, though a@yaradw and its com- 
pounds are sufficiently common: it ap- 
pears first in the LXX. On this blessed 
gift, which, as Dorner well says (Chr. 
Doctr. § 132, Vol. Iv. p. 237, Transl.), 
is ‘a law of life in the new creature,’ 
see Suicer, Zhesaur. Vol. 1. 18, Cremer, 
Worterb. p. 12 sqq. Harless, Chr. 
Lthics, § 19, p. 165 sq., Transl.), and 
Rothe, Theol. LEthik, § 143, Vol. I. p. 
515 sqq. (ed. 2). yéyova Xahkds 
4xXov] ‘Lam become (mere) sounding 
brass ;’ sc. ‘on the assumption just 
specified, I have become and am brass, 
giving a sound, when struck,— a sound 
only, and nothing more;’ gwvhy piv 
aguels, ex 5& Kad udrnv, Chrys. 

H wipBadrov adaddfov] ‘or a (mere) 
clanging cymbal, ‘cymbalum concre- 
pans,’ Jerome (27 Gad. v. 26); as in the 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


254 Cuap. XIII. 1, 2. 


yéyova yadkos nyav % KYuBadov dradalov. *Kal cay exw 
mpopmetav kab €i60 TA pvoTHpia TdavTa Kal Tacay THY YyvaowW, 


n ov wv , . 
kai édv exw Tacav thy Tiotw wate dpn peOvaTavaL, ayaTny 


2. peOiordvat] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., on clearly preponderating external 
authority, but with the probability against it of a change from a less common 
to a more common form: Rec., Rev., Westc. and Hort. webiordvew. The form 
in -ayw is, however, sufficiently common in the N.T. (see Winer, Gr. § 14. 1, 
note) to weaken the force of internal considerations, and so to favor the 
adoption of the better attested reading. The authority for «&y in this 
verse is fairly good, and in the following verse better, but the authorities on 
either side so far fluctuate that it does not seem critically incorrect to adopt 
the form xa) édvy throughout, which, taken on the whole four places, seems to 


be slightly the better attested form. 


case of yaAkds,— pdvoy ixov amoredovy, 
vénua Sé ovdév émdexvimevoy, Severian 
(Cramer, Caz.) ; ‘sonus merus,’ Bengel. 
The term  daAadrdoy (insufficiently 
rendered ‘tinniens,’ Vulg.; better, ‘so- 
num edens,’ Syr.; ‘jubilans,’ Copt.; 
‘ringing,’ Arm.) seems used to mark 
the confused clanging sound of cymbals 
struck against each other. The verb 
properly denotes the battle-shout of 
victory, but is sometimes, though rarely, 
used of the loud cry of grief (Mark v. 
38, Eurip. Zvectr. 843); see examples 
in Steph. Zhesaur. s. v. Vol. I. p. 1393. 
For an account of the different kinds 
of cymbals, see Smith, Dict. of Bible, 
Si ve Vol. I..p. 375. 

2. Kal éav exw «.7.A] ‘And if [should 
have (the gift of) prophecy, and (still 
further) should know all the mysteries 
(of God’s counsels) avd all the knowt- 
edge (thereof),’ zc. ‘if in this high 
degree I should have prophecy and all 
that is spiritually associated with it.’ 
The pvornpia here spoken of are the 
blessed mysteries of redemption (ch. ii. 
7, Rom. xvi. 25, 1 Pet. i. 10 sq.), of the 
relations of Jew and Gentile (Rom. xi. 
25, Eph. iii. 4 sq.), and, in a word, of 
the kingdom of Christ (7a wvorhpia Tis 
Bactrcias Tay obpavay, Matt. xiii. 11), 
past, present, and future,—the things 


cis & emiBuuodow ByyeAot mapaxiwaz, 
1 Pet. i. 12. On the meaning of uvorh- 
ptov, see Cremer, Worterb. s. v. p. 426 
sq.. and comp. notes oz Eph. v. 32. 
The acav thy yvGow being under the 
same regimen must naturally be re- 
ferred to the same subject —‘ possess 
the spiritual gift of the fullest cogni- 
zance (wacay thy yv.) of all these Bdén 
Tov @eov:’ see notes on ch. xii. 8. 

Tracay Thy wher] ‘all faith,’ scil. faith 
in its fullest form and nature,—not 
every form of it (wacav miotww), but all 
the fulness of it. The faith here speci- 
fied is not ‘fides salvifica,’ but, as in 
ch. xii. 9 (where see notes), wonder- 
working faith, faith of a spiritual 
potency sufficient to enable him who 
had it (the latent subject is the speaker, 
—not miotts, as apparently Evans) to 
move mountains: comp. Matt. xvii. 20, 
xxi. 21, Under the two heads, mlotis 
and mpopnteia, the Apostle substantially 
includes all the greater gifts; év Bpaxe? 
mdvTa, meoeAape Ta Xaplouata, moopnTeiav 
eimay Ka miotw, Chrys. ovbév 
eipe] ‘Zam nothing ;’ not ‘nullius sum 
pretii apud Deum,’ Estius, but, as the 
whole context implies, of no moral 
worth, utterly nothing: ov« elme 5é, drt 
Gydmny uh eExwv pixpds elute Kad evTEAhs, 
GAA’ ovOev eit, Theoph. zz Joc. The 


Cuap. XIII. 2-4. 


dé un Exo, ovbev ei. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


255 


3 IRS J , NE Ch ae? , 
Kal €av opicw TAVTA TA UTTaPYOVTAa 


\ 2\ lal \ a / / a) / > / \ 
pov, Kal €ay Tapad® TO cHud pov iva KavOnoouar, ayarny dé 


bn exw ovdey wperovpas. 


form ov6ey is in the text of Steph. 1550, 
and rests on greatly preponderating 
authority: Zz., ovdév. 

3. Kal édv Woulow Ktr.] ‘And if [ 
should give away in food all my goods ;’ 
the verb Pwul(ew having here no accusa- 
tive of the person (Chrys. supplies tots 
mevntas, Lheod. tovs Seomevous; So Syr., 
Vulg.), as the thought turns more upon 
the doling out, and converting into 
food, of the mdvra Ta tmdpxovta, than 
upon the recipients, who would not 
need to be specified: comp. Winer, 
Gr. § 32. 4.a, note. The verb is used 
in Rom. x. 20, and not unfrequently in 
the LXX: it occurs in the medical 
writers, in Aristophanes (Zg. 712, 
Lysistr. 19, Thesm. 692), and in Aris- 
totle (Z/ist. An. VIII. 3), commonly in 
the sense of feeding with Pwpot (dw), 
scil. ‘rei esculentz frusta,’ Steph.: 
comp. Wetst. zz Joc. tva 
Kav0yoopat ‘that L might be burned, 
or rather, to be burned:’ the ta being 
here used, as often in the N. T., witha 
predominating idea of result, though 
not without a clear trace of associated 
purpose: see notes on ch, ix. 18. On 
the use of #va with the future, see notes 
on ch. ix. 15, 18, and ox Gai. ii. 4. 
The reading is doubtful. As faras the 
future is concerned, it may be admitted 
that the external evidence seems less 
strong than that for the solecistic 
future conjunctive (see Winer, Gr. $ 
13. I. 2), but the improbability that the 
Apostle could have adopted such a 
form, and the possibility of itacistic 
error, preponderate for the future. 
Whether kavxyfowua (ABN; 17; 
Memph., Theb.; Orig., al.; Zachm., 
Westc. and Hort) may not be the true 
reading may be considered fairly open 


4H aydrn paxpoOupei, ypnoteveras * 


to question. The objection is the 
flatness of the ‘ut glorier’ in this con- 
text; but see Westc. and ort, Vol. 11. 
p- 117. This, with the amount of dis- 
tinctly good and early external author- 
ity in favor of kav@jcouor seems to jus- 
tify us in our retention of the more 
familiar verb. The Apostle is here 
referring, not to martyrdom at the 
stake, which was subsequent to the 
period now before us, but to cases like 
that in Dan. iii. (see ver. 28, rapéSa- 
Kav T2 CouaTa a’tay eis mip) and 2 
Mace. vii.5sqq. The cases of Calanus 
and Peregrinus mentioned by Grotius 
and others do not seem in point, nor 
even the ingenious reference of Bp. 
Lightfoot (0 Col. p. 394) to the tomb 
of the self-immolated Indian at Athens: 
the Apostle would much more naturally 
have in his thoughts examples from 
the history of his own nation. 

4-7. Characteristics of Love. 

4. pakpoOupel, Xpnoreverar] ‘2s long 
suffering, is kind:’ cardinal charac- 
teristics of love, waxpodvula and xpno- 
térns ; succeeded by characteristics ex- 
pressed on the negative side (ver. 5, 6), 
and followed by further characteristics 
on the positive side. In pakpoOuueiy 
the prominent idea is that of gentle 
and forbearing patience, which épe 
yevvalws Tov méAas TH éAaTTSuaTa and, 
as Origen (Cramer, Caz.) truly says, is 
a veritable kaprbs tod MTyevuaros. 
Chrysostom misses this tender and 
gracious aspect of the noble word, con- 
founding in fact ‘longanimity’ [comp. 
Brown, Vulg. Errors, 1. 3, ‘the long- 
animity and lasting sufferance of God’] 
with ‘magnanimity’ (7d yap pakpdv, Kab 
peéeya A€yerat): comp. Theoph. 7 Joc. 
On the meaning of the word generally, 


256 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


CuapP. XIII. 4, 5. 


n ayamn ov (rot:  ayamn od meptrepeveTat, ov puatodtat, ® ovK 


aoxnuovel, ov Enter Ta éavTis, ov tmapokvvetar, ov Aoyilerar TO 


see Cremer, Worterd. s. v. p. 289, and 
the notes and references oz 1 Thess. v. 
14, and oz Eph. iv. 2. The distinction 
between pakpobvuia and -paitns is 
drawn, in the main correctly, by 
Theoph. on Gal. v. 22, merciful delay 
in the infliction of the mpoofhkovea Sixn 
being regarded as the characteristic in 
the former case (see notes oz Gal. v. 
22), complete remission of it, in the 
latter. In the verb xpnorevecOar 
the leading idea is gracious kindness 
and benevolence : comp. Clem.-Rom. 
ad. Cor, 1. 14, xpnotevodmeba aborts 
Kate Thy evowrAaxviay Kal yAuKiTHTA Tod 
Tonouvtos muas. The form is only 
found here and in the Eccl. writers. 
On the meaning of xpyordrns, see notes 
on Gal. v. 22. Gyan od 
meptrepeverar] ‘love vaunteth not itself, 
2s not boastful ;’ this being apparently 
the original meaning of this late and 
hybrid word (comp. Lat. ‘ perperus,’ 
‘perperam,’) and forming a kind of 
link between the preceding (Aoi, and 
the succeeding guwira: envy leads 
to vaunting and boastfulness, and 
vaunting to inflation and pride. So 
rightly, Goth. (‘ni fldéuteith’), Arm. 
(‘is not haughty’), CEcum., aadadoved- 
erat. Various other shades of meaning 
have been here assigned to the word, 
— ‘agit perperam,’ Vulg. ; tumultuatur, 
Syr.; mpowereverat, Chrys. (comp. Orig. 
ap. Cramer, Cat., mokumpaymovet),— its 
use, however, in Polybius and Epicte- 
tus (Arrian), by whom it is associated 
with AdAos and maddAados (see Steph. 
Thesaur. s. v.) appears decisive in 
favor of the idea of vaunting and act- 
ing the part of the braggart; so 
Hesych., Suidas: see Suicer, 7hesaur. 
Vol. 11. p. 696 sq. On the force of the 
middle, as marking the appropriation 
of the state or condition implied in the 


active, see Donalds. Gr. § 432. 2. 66%. 
The reading is not perfectly certain: 
Lachm. and Treg. bracket aydan in this 
clause ; Westc. and Hort omit the word, 
—but on authority which does not 
seem sufficient. 7Z7sch. retains the 
word, but connects it with the preced- 
ing ov (nAot, throwing back the second 
nh aydan to ov xpnoretera (so also 
Lachm.),—but certainly notewith any 
advantage in point of symmetry. 

5. OVK GoXypove] ‘doth not behave 
ztself unseemly ;’ whether in public or 
in private; ove &oxnudy tt mpdrret, 
Origen (Cramer, Caz.). The rendering 
of Vulg., ‘non est ambitiosa,’ is pecu- 
liar, and apparently suggested by the 
clause that follows, but lexically un- 
tenable. The idea conveyed is simply, 
that Love, not merely ‘non erubescit,’ 
or ‘pudore afficitur,’ Copt. (a meaning 
lexically tenable; see notes on ch. vii. 
36), but does nothing that involves 7d 
&oxnuoy in any form; ‘non agit quod 
pudendum,’ Syr., ‘ni divisk6th,’ Goth. 
On the meanings of the word, see notes 
on ch. vii. 36. od {yret Ta éavris] 
‘seeketh not its own things,’ scil. its own 
interest or profit (ch. x. 33); see ch. x. 
24, and notes 27 Joc. od Tapott- 
verat] ‘7s not provoked (to anger),’ the 
expressive mapottvera: being the direct 
opposite of the uaxpobuue? in the pre- 
ceding verse. It is thus more than 
‘non facile concitatur ad iram,’ Estius: 
it implies that it gives way to no provo- 
cation ; comp. Chrys. 27 Joc. ov 
Aoyllerar Td Kaxdv] ‘taketh no account 
of the evil (done to it) ;’ the verb Aoyi- 
(ec@a being taken in its proper sense 
of ‘accounting’ or ‘reckoning,’ and the 
7d kaxdv referring to the ‘malum ab 
altero illatum,’ Bengel: comp. 2 Cor. v. 
19, uh Aoy:Céuevos adrois Ta Tapam7déyara 
av’tév, Rom. iv. 4, 6, al. Two other 


CuaP. XIII. 5-7. 


yw CORN TALANS). 


257 


xaxov, “ov xaipe. emi TH adicia, ovyxaiper Sé TH adnOela- 


- ’ r , 
WaVTA OTEYEL, TAaVTA TLiaTEVEL, TuVTA éATICEL, TaYTA UTTOMEVEL. 


interpretations have been assigned to 
these words; (a) ‘non cogitat malum,’ 
Vulg., Syr., Copt., Goth., Arm.,— in the 
sense of not entertaining evil thoughts: 
comp. Matt. ix. 4, évOvueio@ar wovnpa: 
(4) ‘non suspicatur malum,’ in the 
sense of putting the best construction 
on what might seem to be evil; ‘dubia 
in partem accipit meliorem,’ Grotius, 
ovdev Smomreve: Kata Tod pthoupevou, 
Chrys.; comp. Theod. Of these (a) 
fails to maintain the full force of the 
verb and overlooks the 7d «axdv ; while 
(4) equally misses the force of the verb 
and the article, and makes a statement, 
following pertinently the ov mapotivera, 
merely feeble and general. 

6. od Xalpaéml ry adixla] ‘ refoiceth 
not in unrighteousness ;’ the article 
giving the abstract noun its mast 
generic meaning: see Middleton, Gr. 
Art. v. 5. 1,comp. Kiihner, Gv. § 461. 1. 
It is thus too narrow an interpretation 
to refer it to ad:nig of which others are 
the victims, rots xax@s macxove1, Chrys. 
ovyxatper 8 ry ddnOela] ‘ dect rejoiceth 
with the Truth ;’ the abstract sub- 
stantive being here almost personified ; 
comp. Rom. vi. 12. It has been 
doubted whether 7 aAfGea is not to be 
here understood as a kind of opposition 
to TH adicia, and so as having a moral 
meaning, — ouvevppatverat Tots Kadois, 
Theod.: comp. ch. v. 8, Rom. ii. 8, in 
which this use of GAfGea is clearly 
to be recognized. As, however, the 
structural relation between the clauses 
is not o’k — aAdd, but ov— dé,—in 
which the dé has merely that partially 
connective, and partially oppositive, 
force which so commonly marks the 
use of the particle (Winer, Gr. § 53. 
7),— it seems better to regard the 
clause as not involving any direct an- 
tithesis, but simply as adding a fresh 


33 


thought —rejoicing w/z almost per- 
sonified truth. Under this aspect it 
appears still more natural to regard 7 
aAnGea as the Truth, sc. the truth as 
contained in the Gospel; comp. Eph. 
i. 13, Col. i.9. Even if the antithesis 
had been studiously marked (comp. 
2 Thess. ii. 12), the latter meaning of 
nH GAnGea would still seem the more 
natural; comp. Meyer zz Joc. On the 
dative, as governed by ovy in suyxaipe, 
see Winer, Gr. § 52. 15. 

7. Teva oréyer] ‘deareth all things ;’ 
practical manifestation of the inwork- 
ing of the gospel truth. The wdvta is of 
course to be understood of all things to 
which the associated words can in any 
degree properly apply, here. c&y poptina 
7, Kav érax0}, Kav CBpews, kav mAnyal, 
Kav Odvatos, kv driodv, Chrys.; but 
there is no need for limiting or over- 
carefully defining the noble hyperbole. 
The verb oréyery may mean ‘tegere,’ 
Bengel, al., but is much more naturally 
taken in the same sense as in ch. ix. 12 
(where see notes), scil. ‘suffere,’ Vulg., 
Syr., Copt., Goth., Arm., and the Greek 
expositors: so, in the adumbration of 
these verses in Clem.-Rom., 1 Cor. cap. 
49, wdvta avéxerat. There is thus an 
ascent, as it were, through faith and 
hope, from the simpler oréyes to the 
nobler and more expressive dmropéve:. 
This and the following terms, as Har- 
less well observes, all imply that love 
preserves its peculiar essence in con- 
stant struggle against what is hostile: 
see Chr. Ethics, § 47, p. 390 (Transl.). 
mavTa muorrever] ‘believeth all things ;’ 
entertains no distrustful feelings ; 
devdj vouicer tov ayammuevov, Theod. 
To this the ravra éAm(fle, applicable 
to the future as well as to the present, 
naturally and climactically succeeds. 
On this text, see a good sermon by 


258 


8°H ayarn ovdémote mimes. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. XIII. 7-9. 


elite 5€ mpopnteiar, KatapynOy- 


GovTaL* ElTe yYAM@oCaL, TAVCOVTAaL* ElTE YVOoLS, KaTapynOnoeTas. 


%éx épous yap yuv@oKomen Kal Ex mépovs Tpobyntevopev* | dTay 


8. wirret] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly pre- 


ponderating authority: Rec., éxmimret. 


Farindon, Sevm. xc. Vol. III. p. 547 sqq. 
(Lond. 1849). Tavra dropever | 
endureth all things ;’ with the drave 
patience which is the essential idea of 
the N.T. irouovh: see notes 07 1 Thess. 
i. 3, where the meaning of the substan- 
tive is fully investigated. The dropéve 
points more clearly than the oréye: not 
only to the present, and the trials it 
may bring with it, but to the future, 
and to an enduring courage, which, 
having done all, stands firm to the end 
(Eph. vi. 13). The Greek expositors 
seem to refer the different statements 
in the verse too exclusively to the hu- 
man object of the love (rdv é&yammuevor, 
Theod., Chrys. ; tov auapravovra, Phot.); 
Estius and others (in the case of the 
last three verbs), too exclusively to 
the ‘officium charitatis erga Deum.’ 
As the mayra clearly indicates, both 
are included. Love to God and our 
neighbor are closely intertwined ; comp. 
1 John iv. 20, 21. 

8-13. Zhe ever-abiding nature of 
Love. 8. ‘H dyarn ovdérore 
ataret] ‘ Love never falls, scil. remains 
ever firm, ever holds her place: comp. 
Luke xvi. 17, Tod pdvov piay Kkepatay 
meceiyv. The reading exmimre: appears 
to have somewhat more of an ethical 
tinge, — ‘never fails,’ ‘never falls away’ 
from her true attitude and mission ; ov 
Siadverar, ov diaxdwrerat¢ Oépew, Chrys.; 
comp. Rom. ix. 6, ovx ofoy 8& br 
Theodo- 
‘ret, however, appears to regard it as 
little more than synonymous with the 
true reading mimrei, scil. uéver BeBata Kat 
aodAevtos, ‘semper locum suum ob- 
tinet,’ Bengel. The ovdémute may be 


éxmémtwxev 6 Adyos ToD Oeod. 


used with some rhetorical force rather 
than the simpler o¥more or ov... more 
(2 Pet. i. 21), the ov8érore implying the 
‘gar nicht einmal’ of the German (see 
Kiihner, Gr. § 537. 4); but it must be 
observed that the omore (in its resolved 
state) is only used once in the N.T., 
while ov5émore occurs fifteen or sixteen 
times. elre 8& mpodnyretar, 
katapynOycovrat] ‘bat whether there 
be prophecies they shall be done away 
with ;’ enumeration, by means of the 
correlative disjunctive (ef7e... eive... 
elre: Winer, Gr. § 53. 6), of three of 
the xapfouata mentioned in ch. xii. 8, 
10, which, notwithstanding their great 
importance, were still only mpécxatpa, 
and passed away when the need for 
them in the Church had ceased. On 
the word karapye (a favorite word 
with the Apostle, used by him twenty- 
five times), see notes 07 Gal. iii. 17; 
on yvGos, see.notes on ch. xii. 8; and 
on mpopnteia and yA@ooa, notes on ch. 
xii. 10. 
9. ék pépovs yap K.T.A.] ‘For we 
know (only) in part, and prophesy (only) 
im part:’ confirmation of the state- 
ments in the foregoing verse in two of 
the particulars, the third (yAéoca:) 
speaking for itself, as by its very nature 
transitory and partial. Knowledge and 
prophesy, xapiouara though they be, 
are, in the present dispensation, é« 
Mépous, and so must pass away and give 
place to the 7d TéAesov which the 6 aidy 
6 peaAdwy will bring with it; wep) yap 
MéAAovTos elev xpévov, Origen (Cramer, 
Cat.). As the order shows, the em- 
phasis rests on é« wépovs. The expres- 
sion occurs in ch. xii. 27, but in a 


Cap. XIII. 9-11. 1 CORINTHIANS. 


259 


dé EXOn TO TéAEvoOV, TO EK pépous KaTapynOnceTaL. | OTE Humv 


yHTLos, EXaAOUY wS VITLOS, EppovoLY ws VHTrLOS, EXoyLGouNV ws 


/ i74 / > / La \ nr / 12 / 

VHTLOS* OTE YEYyOVa avnp, KATNPYNKA TQ TOV VYTLOV. Prétropev 

10. TéAewov, TY ex mepous] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, 
on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec. inserts rére before 7d ek uépous. 

II. éAdAouy &s vhmios, éppdvouy ws vimos, edoyiduny ws vitios] So Lachm., 
Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly preponderating authority: Fec., 
&s vimios éAdAouy, as vhmios eppdvovy, @s vimios édoyiCounv. bte yéeyova] 
So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very clearly preponderating 


authority: Rec. dre 5€ yéyova. 


somewhat different sense; see notes. 
On the meaning of é« uepous as applied 
to prophecy (its historical limitations), 
see Martensen, Chr. Dogm. § 123, obs., 
p- 235 (Transl.). 

10. Stray St ZOq Td TéAerov K.T.A.] 
‘but when that which is perfect shall 
have come, that which is in part shall be 
done away with :’ contrasted statement 
of the future, and of the mighty 
changes that it will bear with it: when 
the Lord comes, then 7d é« pepous wil 
necessarily be done away with. Chrys., 
followed by Theoph. and CEcum., draws 
a distinction between mpopnreia: and 
yA@eou, which, he says, would be su- 
perfluous when the faith was fully 
established (rlorews mavtaxod diaomapel- 
ONS TepiTTH ToUTwY 7% xXpela Aourdv), and 
yv@e1s, which, so far as it is pepirh, 
would be done away with at the Lord’s 
coming. This sort of distinction as to 
the time of the 7d karapyetoOa is not 
in any way implied in the present pas- 
sage, which simply draws a distinction 
between that which is defore the Lord’s 
coming and that which is afer it. Af- 
ter the mapovoia, prophesyings, tongues, 
and even knowledge itself, all of them 
really being é uépous, will be done away 
with ; 6 yap néAAwy Blos ToUTwy avevdens, 
Theod. zz /oc. Hofmann urges that 
what is done away with can only be 
the three gifts as zow exercised, on the 
ground that in the illustration that 
follows the speaking, thinking, and 


reasoning continue, though in changed 
forms. This is clearly to overpress an 
illustration, and to introduce consid- 
erations which are alien to the simple 
contrasts between the present and the 
future, and the broad and general tone 
of the context. 

Il. 8re tpynv vamos] ‘ When L was a 
child ;’ illustration, not improbably sug- 
gested by the use of réAevos in the pre- 
ceding ver. yhmios and TéAeios being con- 
trasted terms both in St. Paul’s Epistles 
(ch. xiv. 20, Eph. iv. 13, 14) and else- 
where; see the examples in Bleek oz 
feb. v. 14, and comp. Trench, Syzoz. 
§ 22. On the later form funy, see 
Winer, Gr. § 14. 2, and notes oz Gad. 
Tat. €lddovv as viatios k.T-A.] 
‘TI spoke as a child, I thought as a child, 
L reasoned as a child ;’ so Syr. and 
Arm., the verb ¢povetv here apparently 
marking simply the exercise of the 
(developing) phy, and the AoyiterOu, 
the exercise of the understanding and 
judgment. In Rev. the reference is 
made to the feelings, ‘I felt as a child’ 
(‘videtur referri ad affectus,’ Beza) ; 
but a more distinctly mental operation 
seems involved in the word and in its 
use in the N.T.. ‘significatur judicium 
mentis de rebus,’ Est. In Aoyi(er@a 
there is the further idea of calculating 
(Arm.) and judging; not ‘cogitabam,’ 
Vulg., but ‘ratiocinabar,’ Beza, Bengel. 
The reference of these terms to the 
yAa@oou, Tpopnreiat, and years of ver. 8 


260 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. XIII. 11, 12. 


\ ” ) > If 3 r pee / 8 \ vf * 
2 
yap apTt ou €GOoTTTPOU EV aAWlyHaTl, TOTE O€ TPOTWTTOVY TPOsS 


"4 / 
Mpocwmov* apTL ywwcke éx pépous, TOTE dé éervyy@cowar Kalas 


(Theoph., Beng., GEcum., al.) is forced, 
and in no way suggested by the context. 
Ste yéyova avip K.t.r.] ‘ow that L 
have become a man I have done away 
with the things of the child ;’ the ab- 
sence of any particle making the con- 
trast between the ¢/ez and the zow more 
marked and emphatic. The Apostle 
passes into the perfect rather than the 
aorist, as thereby marking not only 
the state that had succeeded, but was 
now the continuing and permanent 
state: the perfect, as Hermann pre- 
cisely says, ‘tempus significat przeteri- 
tum terminatum presenti tempore, ita 
ut res, que perfecto exprimitur, nunc 
peracta dicatur, illudque jam, peractam 
rem esse, presens sit,’ de Emend. Rat. 
p- 186 (cited by Winer); comp. notes 
on Eph. ii. 8. For a sermon on this 
text (Christian manhood) see Newman, 
Serm. Vol. 1. p. 389 sqq. (Lond. 1835). 
12. BAéropev yap K.T.A.] ‘For now 
we see in a mirror, in perplexing 
form ;’ confirmation (ydp) not of the 
preceding illustration (fer se), but as 
elucidating the cardinal statement of 
ver. 10, by a further statement of the 
two characteristics of our present 
knowledge, as 5? éodmrpov and éy ai- 
viywart. Wesee God in a world which 
imperfectly reflects Him, and in an 
enigmatical form,—a form which he 
only can understand who takes account 
of this imperfect reflection, and of the 
necessarily conditioned nature of the 
self-revelation. The 8v’ éodarrpov may 
mean ‘by means of a mirror’ (Words- 
worth, Hofmann), but is more natu- 
rally taken as referring to the illusion 
under which what we see appears to 
be on the other side of the surface, and 
as it were ¢hrough it: see Winer, Gr. 
§ 47. 1. On the mirror (€corrpoy cannot 
lexically have any other meaning; see 


James i. 23) of the ancients, — a highly 
burnished plate composed of. mixed 
metal, —see Smith, Dzct. of Bible, Vol. 
Il. p. 382 g, Winer, &. W. ZB. Part i. 
p- 476. The év aivlypari is a 
difficult expression, alvryza meaning 
properly ‘a riddle’ (ppdors emirndev- 
peévn eis Godperav, Phavor.),— a meaning 
strongly maintained by Meyer, both 
here and in the passage which was cer- 
tainly in the Apostle’s thoughts (Num. 
xii. 8, év efSer at ob SP aiviypdtwv), — 
but, in this particular place, clearly in- 
volving a somewhat forced interpreta- 
tion: we can hardly speak of ‘seeing 
anything in a riddle.’ On the other 
hand, the current adverbial translation 
(aiviyparik@s, aiviywatwde@s) practically 
confuses the thing seen with the mode 
of seeing it. In this difficulty it seems 
best to refer atviyua to the puzzling 
and enigmatical form (comp. Dio Cass. 
Hist. Rom. Wt. 3 Fragm., té6 tis xolpov 
alviyua) seen in the mirror, and to take 
the preposition as marking the sphere 
to which the BaAerew was limited, — 
‘in a mirror, (and) in a form of baffling 
significance,’ ‘in /rzsahtaz, Goth, ; 
comp. Hofmann zz Joc. On the mean- 
ing of &pte (‘just now,’ ‘modo’), see 
notes oz 1 Thess. iii. 6, and comp- Lo- 
beck, Phryz. p. 18 sq. Tote Sé 
mpdcwtov mpos mpdcwroy] ‘but then 
[when the perfect is come, ver. 10] 
face to face,—face meeting face, mpé- 
owmov being nominative in apposition 
to the subject of BaAémouev (comp. 
Kriiger, Sprachl. § 57. 10), and the 
expression itself Hebraistic; comp.: 
Num. xii. 8, ordua katd otdua AaAnow 
avtT@ év elder kad od OY aiviyudrov. 

emrryvaocopar Kalas Kal éreyvaor8nvd ‘7 
shall ( fully) know even as Iwas (fully) 
known ;’ viz. by God (comp. ch. viii. 3), 
at the time that His saving knowledge 


Cuap. XIII. 12, 13. 


\ > , 
Kal érreyvaoOnv. 


t CORINTHIANS. 


261 


Byypyl Sé wéve tiotis, édmis, ayatn, Ta Tola 


n / \ A a 2 / 
TavTa* pweilwy O€ TOUT@Y 7 ayaTn. 


was directed to me, and I was called, 
and converted ; Me eyvapice, 
gnotv, Chrys. On this knowledge, see 
Harless, Chr. Ethics, § 18, p. 159 sq. 
(Transl.), comp. Rothe, Zheol. E£thik, 
§ 458, Vol. 11. p. 484 sq. (ed. 2). Itis 
quite clear from this passage that the 
compound émyweonery (Goth., u/kun- 
nan, as contrasted with the simple 
witan) is stronger than the simple 
form (consider Rom. i. 32, 2 Cor. vi. 
g, al.) and, as such, here studiously used 
by the Apostle, though in many pas- 
sages (comp. e.g. Col. i. 6 with 2 Cor. 
Vili. 9, 2 Pet. ii. 21 with Rom. ili. 17) it 
can hardly be expressed in English 
without exaggeration. Here 
probably zztensive (axpiPerdy twa onual- 
ve. kal émitacw évepyelas, Eustath.), 
rather than merely additive or directive, 
but the shades of meaning between the 
simple and compound are so delicate 
that it is not in all cases possible to 
speak with perfect precision; see es- 
pecially Cremer, Wé6rterb. p. 158. On 
the use of xal in comparative sentences 
like the present, comp. notes oz Gail. 
iv. 3. 

13. vuvi 8& pever k.7.d.] ‘But, as it is, 
there abideth faith, hope, love ;’ the vuvt 
being logical (not temporal: comp. ch. 
xii. 18, 20), and the 6€ contrasting the 
abiding nature of the three virtues with 
the transitory character of the gifts 
(ver. 8 sqq.). The wéve: thus stretches 
onward into the world beyond the 
present, and, in accordance with the 
whole idea of continuity of existence 
which ver. 10 sqq. indirectly bring home 
to us, conveys the deep thought that 
faith, hope (it may be, in some neces- 
sarily changed aspects), and love, will 
endure for evermore. Faith will be- 
come ever more intense, hope ever 
brighter, and love, the sustainer of 


Ce 
autos 


émt is 


both, ever more deep and energizing ; 
ylvetat opodporepa, Chrys. According 
to the general view of the passage 
based on Rom. viii. 24, Heb. xi. 1 
(Chrys., Theod.; comp. also 2 Cor. v. 
7), the vuvi is regarded as temporal, 
and the wéve: as limited to the present 
state of being (Wordsw.), but the objec- 
tion seems conclusive, that, according 
to this view, there is nothing whatever 
to show that faith and hope would be 
more permanent than the xapiouara, 
for the termination of the xapiouara is 
in no way implied as prior to the érav 
€A@n Td TEeActov (ver. 10); and further, 
on the assumption that the 7d pet(ov of 
love depends upon its survival in the 
world to come, péve would really have 
two meanings, one in reference to faith 
and hope, and another in reference to 
love. We can hardly hesitate, there- 
fore, to adopt the wider and nobler 
view of the passage above specified, 
enhanced as it also seems to be by the 
clause ra rpia Tatra, which, it wouldseem 
was specially introduced to place on 
the same separate levelthe three great 
Christian graces, and almost to obviate 
the very conception of any difference 
in the 7d wéve of each. If the view 
here advocated be correct, it is obvious 
that mioris and éAmis must be taken, 
each in its widest scriptural significance 
(opposed to Meyer, al.), and in its 
highest conceivable meaning. On the 
supposition, entertained by many sober 
thinkers, that there may be spiritual 
progress in the future world, the 7d 
peévew, in the case not only of aydrn 
but 'of miorts and éAmis, will become 
additionally intelligible ; see Martensen, 
Dogmatics, § 290. p. 485 (Transl.), 
Dorner, Chr. Doctr. § 155. 3, Vol. Iv. 
p- 432 sq. (Transl.). pellav Sé 
TovTev  ayamn] ‘and the greatest of 


262 


Seek to prophesy rath- 
er than to speak with 
tongues Tospeak what 
is not understood does 
not edify. 


TVEUMATLKA, 


these is love ;’ the 6€ appending a new 
thought, the ro’rwy being the partitive 
gen., and the comparative used because 
aydrn is contrasted with miorts and 
éAmis taken, as it were, together, and 
forming one category; see Winer, Gr. 
§ 35. 3. The grounds on which this 
inspired declaration has been supposed 
to rest have been very differently stated. 
The most natural explanation would 
seem to be that as aydn is stated in 
this very chapter as ‘ dedzeving all things 
and hoping all things’ (ver. 7), it may 
be rightly deemed the nutrient and sus- 
taining principle (if even not the voof, 
De Wette) of both faith and hope,— 
that which gives to faith all its energy, 
and to hope all its vividness of persis- 
tence. The opinion of Weiss (4720/. 
Theol. § 93, Vol. 11. p. 37, Transl.), that 
the rd met(oy depends upon love re- 
lating to the Church, faith and hope 
merely to the individual, is plausible, 
but does not emerge from the actual 
context. The true explanation may 
really lie deeper still, and may depend 
upon considerations in the mind of the 
Apostle which he has not disclosed. 
At any rate we cannot forget what 
another Apostle has twice said,— 6 
cds aydrn éotiv, I John iv.8,16. For 
a sound practical sermon on this sub- 
ject, see Jones (of Nayland), Serxm. 1. 
p- 1 sqq. (Lond. 1829). 


XIV. Resumption of the subject of 
spiritual gifts, and demonstration that 
the gift of prophecy is greater than that 
of speaking with tongues, whether in 
reference to believers (I-19), or to unbe- 
lievers (20-25). 

1. Avokere tiv ayarrny] ‘ Pursue after 
love :’ counsel following immediately 
upon what has been said relative to 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. XIII. 13-XIV. 1, 


XIV. Awxere tiv ayarnv, &rovTe 5é Ta 


padrov bé iva mpodntevyte. 


love, and in terms (diéxere) perhaps 
suggested by the @r nae’ bwepBodrhy 
65dy buty deikvume of ch. xii. 31. The 
word is, however, also clearly used 
as marking the bmirerauévny omovdhy 
(Theoph.) with which the pursuit must 
be carried on: comp. Phil. iii. 12, 13. 
The broad principle being now stated, 
the Apostle at once passes on to the 
various details. 

{mrotre 8 ra mvevpariKd] ‘but desire 
earnestly spiritual gifts ;’ the 5é€ here 
marking that though they were to pur- 
sue after love, they were not the less 
to do what they had already been in- 
structed to do (ch. xii. 31), viz. to desire 
earnestly the xapiouara already spoken 
of, and especially the great xapiouara, 
of which two examples are now intro- 
duced, and compared with one another, 
—both being connected with speech 
and utterance. Between (ydodv and 
didxery there does not appear to be 
any difference, intensively considered, 
beyond what is involved in the very 
nature of the words: dicey marks 
the persistence, (yAody the energy and 
earnestness (comp. notes on ch. xii. 31) 
with which the object was to be sought: 
comp. Plutarch, J7Zo7. p. 448, 7d mparov 
€movrat Kal (ndovow, Sortepoy 5é Kal gi- 
Aovow. In the N.T. (as indeed in clas- 
sical Greek) both in (jAos and (nAdw 
the idea of emulation or envy is merged 
in the really primary idea ((éw) of 
fervor or earnestness of pursuit : comp. 
Thucyd. ist, 11. 37, (ndody robs trav 
méAas vduovs, Eurip, Hec. 255, (naodv 
Snunydpous Timds. padAov St 
Wa mpodynredyte] ‘but chiefly (desire 
earnestly) that ye may prophesy ;’ ‘in 
carrying out the general precept let it 
be especially your care (é&aipérws, The- 
oph.) to do so in reference to prophe- 


Cuap. XIV. 1-3. 


1 CORINTHIANS: 


263 


26 yap Nadav yAwoon ovK avOpaTros Aare AGArAA OcG, ovdels 


yap aKover, TrevpwaTe O€ Aare povoTHpLA. 


36 5€ mpopntevor 


2. @eg] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very distinctly 


preponderating evidence: Rec., 7G Oc@. 


sying.’ The ta marks the purpose of 
the (mAodre, but not without that tinge 
of result which is so often to be traced 
in the use of this particle. In such 
cases the final sentence almost passes 
into the objective: see notes on ch. 
iv. 2, ix. 18, and comp. Winer, Gr. 
§ 63. 2.1. 

2. 6 yap Aadov K.t.A.] ‘Hor he that 
speaketh in a tongue speaketh not to 
men, but to God ;’ confirmation of the 
MaAdov Se tva mpopytednte, by showing 
the unedifying nature of speaking with 
tongues, at any rate as far as man was 
concerned; one so speaking speaks 
only to God, ‘omnes linguas intelli- 
genti,’ Bengel. ovdels yap 
‘eKover] ‘for 20 one heareth (him) ; con- 
firmatory of the foregoing, any intel- 
ligent hearing of what was so spoken 
being distinctly exceptional. The 
axevew here clearly involves the idea 
of ‘understanding,’ but is used rather 
than any more definite word (oie, ver. 
16; cuvinow, Matt. xiii. 15; yuvdorer, 
Acts viii. 30) as implying sounds heard 
by the outward ear, though not by the 
inward ear of the mind. This use of 
&koveww cannot be called a Hebraism 
(for see examples in Steph. Zhesaur. 
s.v. Vol. I. p. 1269, ed. Hase), but is 
certainly used in the LXX (Gen. xl. 7, 
xlii. 23), where yayj is similarly used 
in the original. ~~ Tvevpate Se 
Aare? puorhpia] ‘bt in the Spirit he 
speaketh mysteries ;’ the 8é, with an 
explanatory and faintly ratiocinative 
force (see notes oz Gal. ii. 4), eluci- 
dating the ovdels yap axovec and forming 
with it a sort of compound confirma- 
tion of the first clause of the verse, 
each member of the statement being 


substantiated: ‘he speaks not to men 
but to God, for no one understands 
him, the spirit being that in which and 
with which he speaks, and the tenor 
of what he speaks, mysteries.’ On this 
explanatory use of 5, not uncommonly 
found, as here, after a negative, see 
Kihner, Gr. § 532. 2, and comp. § 526. 
The mvetyart (probably instrumental 
dative, corresponding with the fore- 
going yAdaon) is here the human spirit, 
that portion of our composite nature 
(see notes 07 1 Thess. v. 23) with which 
the Holy Spirit vouchsafes to commu- 
nicate, and which in this, as in num- 
berless similar passages, is regarded as 
filled by His presence; see notes om 
Phil. i. 23, 2 Tim. i. 7, and comp. 
Cremer, Worterb. s.v. p. 509 sq. On 
the meaning of wuorhpioy in St. Paul’s 
Epistles (something not fully compre- 
hensible by unassisted human reason), 
see notes oz Eph. v. 32, Reuss, 7heéol. 
Chrét. Iv. 5, Vol. 11. p. 88, and Cremer, 
Worterb. s.v. p. 427 sq. Both the 
matter and the manner of the utterance 
were such as to justify the statement 
in the first portion of the verse; wuarh- 
pia pbeyyerat Sia TOY yAwooay, Severian. 
On the speaking with tongues, see 
notes on ch. xii. 10, and comp. Marten- 
sen, Chr. Dogm. § 186, p. 338 (Transl.), 
but observe that what is here men- 
tioned, and that which is specified Acts 
ii. 4 sqq., however spiritually allied, 
are, as the inspired account clearly 
shows, in effects and characteristics 
unmistakably different. 

3. 6 8& mpodyredov «.t.A.] ‘But he 
that prophesieth (exercises the gift of 
mpopnrela, ch. xii. 10) speuketh to men 
edification, and exhortation, and conse 


264 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. XIV. 3-5. 


avOpwrrois adel oiKodopyy Kal tmapdkKnow Kai trapapyvOlav. 
46 NaA@Y yA@oon EavTOY oiKodomeEt* Oo Sé TpopyTevwY exKAno lav 


> a 
oiKodomed. 


lation ;’ he builds up the inward life 
of his fellow-men, gives counsel to the 
mind and comfort to the heart. The 
three substantives are independent of 
each other (according to Bengel, al., 
the first marks the genus, the second 
and third the special forms of it), 
marking the three principal manifesta- 
tions inwhichthe gift of rpopytela shows 
itself, — tos dornpiktous oikodomodca, 
Tovs pabuwotépous Tapakadovoa kal dre- 
yelpovoa,tovs dAvyoWUXous Tapauvboumern, 
Theoph. Of these three manifesta- 
tions, the first seems to refer more 
particularly to the building up and de- 
veloping of the spiritual life of the 
soul (comp. Eph. iv. 16, and see Cremer, 
Worterb. s.v. oixodouéw, p. 451); the 
second, mapaxAnois (associated with oi- 
kodoun, in I Thess. v. II), to all that is 
covered by the word ‘exhortation’ 
(scil. ‘ad studium bonorum operum,’ 
Est.), — not ‘encouragement ’ or ‘ com- 
fort,’ as this idea appears in the word 
that follows (comp. notes o7 Pil. ii. 
1); the third, wapaduuta (Gr. Aeydu. in 
N.T.; associated with «fanors, Plato, 
Rep. V. p. 450 D), to ‘consolation,’ — 
all that comforts, supports, and cheers ; 
see Phil. ii. 1, where the similar word 
mapauvé.oy is joined with é&ydrn, and in 
parallelism with omAdyxva Ka) oiktipuot. 
The verb occurs 1 Thess. v. 17, tapapv- 
Ociabe Tovs GAtyoWdxous. 

4. 6 Aadav yAdooy K.T.A.] ‘He that 
speaketh in a tongue edifieth himself, 
but he that prophesieth edifieth the 
Church :? contrast between speaking 
with tongues and prophesying in re- 
gard of the first-mentioned and most 
inclusive of the spiritual elements enu- 
merated in the foregoing verse. The 
one who speaks in a tongue ministers 


5@érw Sé mavtas buds Aadely yAWooats, Uaddov dé 


to himself oixodouh,— not necessarily 
by any knowledge of the purport of 
what he says, but by the glow of soul 
associated with the exercise of the xd- 
pioua. The omission of the article in 
the case of ékxAnolta (‘a church,’ Copt.; 
so Meyer) need not be pressed, éxxan- 
cia being one of the very long list of 
words in the N.T. in which appellatives, 
which should naturally have the article 
as denoting natural objects, are still 
found without it: see Winer, Gr. § 19. 1, 
Kiihner, Gr.§ 462. 4. It may,however, be 
admitted that where, as here, the word 
in question does appear, by the very 
tenor of the context, to be used ina 
clearly general sense, the writer, by a 
correct literary instinct, drops the ar- 
ticle. In such cases the true mode of 
expressing this in English (where idiom 
may not allow of the omission of the 
article) is by the often generalizing 
‘the,’ rather than by the numerically 
allied indefinite article : consider Matz- 
ner, Lngl. Gr. Vol. Il. p. 144, com- 
pared with p. 176 (Transl.). ; 

5. OAw SE mavras K.t.A.] ‘Vow / 
would that ye all might speak with 
tongues ;’ the 6€ introducing a thought 
contrasted with the obvious tenor of 
what had preceded ; ‘ I have implied 
that prophesying has a wider influence 
for good than speaking with tongues; 
I would, Zowever, that you all had this 
latter.gift.’. So Chrys., iva uh voulcwow 
811 Backalvwv abrots kabatpet Tas yAdooas 
... Stopbodmevos aitav Thy bmdvoidy dnote 
@daAw SE .7.A. pBaAAov S€ tva 
Tpodytevynte] ‘yet rather that ye should 
prophesy ;’ the second 6€ introducing 
and reverting to the original contrast; 
‘though I do not seek to depreciate 
the former gift, but even wish that you 


Cuap. XIV. 5, 6, 


tr CORINTHIANS. 


265 


iva mpodntednte* peitwv dé 6 mpodytevav 7) 0 Nadav yrAwoooass, 


€xTOs eb pon Sivepunvedy, va % exkAnoia oiKodounv AABN. 


8 pov 


5. welCov S€] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on distinctly 
preponderating authority: Rec., peiCwy ydp. 
6. viv dé] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly 


preponderating authority: Mec., yur) 6é. 


It may be observed that in the con- 


cluding clause Z7sch. omits év before 8:8ax7, but on authority which cannot here 


be regarded as sufficient. 


had it, I s¢/7 would: rather that you 
should prophesy.’ The change from 
the objective or expository form of sen- 
tence (OéAw . . . Aadezv: comp. Donalds. 
Gr. § 385) to the fizal (@é\w... va 
mpopntevnte) is perhaps intended to 
give some tinge of purpose to the ex- 
pression of the wish, but we must not 
forget that @éAw iva certainly does 
occur in passages in the N. T. (Mark 
vi. 25, ix. 30, Luke vi. 31, al.) in which 
it is hard to see that more really is 
meant than an expression of the olject 
of the wish (see Winer, Gr. § 44. 8. 4), 
and that thus we may have here only 
an example of that ‘oratio variata’ 
which is to be found in the best writers : 
see Winer, Gr. § 63. 11.1. On the uses 
of iva in the N. T., see notes oz Eph. 
i. 17, and compare Abt oz 1 John i. 9. 
pellov 8é k.7.X.] Sand greater is he that 
prophesicth ;’ the &é, as in ver. 2, hav- 
ing an expositive, and also faintly 
ratiocinative, force, which may some- 
times be conveyed in English by 
passing into the participial construc- 
tion--‘he that prophesieth being 
greater than etc.’ In such cases the 5é 
approaches in meaning to émel, but 
differs from it in leaving the ratiocina- 
tive element to be inferred from the 
tenor of the clause it introduces, 
whereas, in the case of émet, this ele- 
ment is definitely conveyed by the par- 
ticle. The ideaof ‘something further’ 
is all that we can here properly attri- 
bute to the particle taken fer se: see 
Liiumlein, Gr. Partik. p. 89. 
34 


éxros et pri) Steppnvévg] ‘except zt be that 
he interpret:’ clearly a pleonastic form 
of expression compounded of two ex- 
ceptive formulz; compare ch. xv. 2, 
1 Tim. v. 19, and notes zz Zoc.; see also 
Winer, Gr. § 65. 3. c. On the use of ef 
with the subjunctive, see notes on ch. 
ix. 11. Here the true force, as con- 
trasted with édéy with the subj., is per- 
fectly clear : ef with the subj. represents 
simply that the event will decide the 
point; édy (comp. ver. 6) would intro- 
duce an element of doubt as to the 
matter (‘unless possibly he should 
interpret’) with which the known exis- 
tence of the gift would obviously be 
out of harmony; see Winer, Gr. § 41. 
2. 6. obs., Stallb. on Plato, Zege. 958 p. 
The introduction of ‘forte’ in Vulg. 
(‘nisi forte interpretetur ’) thus exactly 
gives the turn that is instinctively 
avoided. 

6. viv 8 «.7.X.] ‘ Biz, as ztzs (as there 
cannot be general oixodouf without 
épunvela), brethren, if I should come to 
you speaking with tongues;’? the viv 
being logical (comp. ch. v. 11, 1 Thess. 
ili. 8, and see notes 77 Zocc.), and the 8 
mainly continuative (comp. x. 20), its 
slight antithetical force being just 
traceable in the fresh matter which the 
illustration of the main thought of ver. 
5 (viz. no profitable speaking with 
tongues without interpretation) here 
brings with it; comp. notes on ch. xi. 
28. The reference of the Apostle 
to his own case is not intended to dis- 
close any personal experience, as in 


266 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. XIV. 6,7 


dé, adedgol, cay ELOw mpos tuas YAwaoais AaroY, TL Kas 


agerycw, €av py vpiv Nadjow 1) ev aTroKaier 7) ev yv@oer 7 


év mpogpnrteia H) év didayy ; "duos Ta dayvya hori Siddvta, elite 


such a case an éyé would certainly 
have been inserted: it simply individ- 
ualizes, and gives point to the state- 
ment; comp. ch. xiii. 11, 12. 

éay pr) dpiv AaAqow k.t.d.] 67f J should 
not speak to you either in the way of rev- 
elation, or of knowledge, or of prophecy, 
or of teaching :’ parallel clause, on the 
negative side, to the affirmatively ex- 
pressed édy clause which had preceded, 
each being similarly dependent on the 
Ti Huds wpeAhow: ‘what shall I profit 
you if I should come to you speaking 
with tongues,— if (having so come) I 
should not speak to you either in the 
form of revelation etc.’ At first sight 
it might seem more natural to con- 
sider the second clause as limiting the 
negative answer which the ti spas 
apedhow might be conceived to sug- 
gest (‘quid utilitatis spiritualis ex me 
capietis? Nihil profecto, nisi vobis 
loquar etc., prout sequitur,’ Estius), 
but this would imply more than the 
foregoing verse would justify. Nothing 
has yet been said sufficient to prove 
that the answer to the question must 
necessarily be in the negative. All 
that has been said is, that 6 mpopnretdwv 
is greater than 6 Aad@y yAd@ooais, ex- 
cept the one so speaking interpret. 
We therefore regard the hypothetical 
clauses as in parallelism and in similar 
dependence on the question which they 
respectively precede and follow: see 
Fritzsche oz Jatt. iv. 8 [so far as illus- 
tration goes], Plato, Ped. p. 67 E, and 
Stallbaum zz Zoc. The grouping 
of the four substances adopted by 
Estius, and followed by most modern 
expositors, appears to be correct; a7o- 
KdAvyis being that which mpopnreta dis- 
closes and elucidates (the prophet re- 


ceives the revelation, and has the gift 
of conveying its meaning to others), 
and yvdéors that which is imparted by 
d:5axh, scil. ‘docendi gratia, per quam, 
id quod scimus, aliis communicamus,’ 
Estius: comp. ch. xii. 8, Adyos cooias. 
On the meaning of &:5ax4, and its dis- 
tinction from di5acKaAla, see notes o7 
2 Tim. iv. 2; and on the use of & in 
reference to the substance or form 
(inward in the case of dmordAuviis and 
yveo.s, and externally disclosed in the 
case of mpopyreia and d:8axh) in which 
the Aadciv takes place, see ch. ii. 7, and 
notes zz doc.; compare also notes o7 I 
Thess. iv. 15, and Winer, Gr. § 48. 3. 6. 
7. Spws Ta dapuxa K.7.A.] © Though it 
be things without life, if giving a voice, 
whether pipe or harp, yet if they give 
no distinction to the sounds, etc.;* scil. 
‘do not make one note distinct from 
another,’ $@dyyors being the ordinary 
dative ‘of the recipient’ (Donalds. Gr. 
§ 453). The Sus, as in Gal. iii. 15 
(see notes), is attracted from its logical 
position, which really is before édy 
k.7.A.. to the words 7a &puxa, on which © 
the emphasis obviously rests, and on 
which the @ fortiorz of the argument 
depends: see Winer, Gr. § 61. 5. f., 
and comp. § 45. 2. b. The participial 
clause then follows closely, forming a 
secondary predication (Donalds. Gr. § 
442) of time or condition (‘when giv- 
ing’ or ‘if giving;’ Winer adopts the 
concessive form, but less conveniently) 
relative to the 7a &puxa, and placing 
the argumentative illustration clearly 
before the reader. For examples of 
this use of @wvf in reference to music 
or musical instruments, see Matt. xxiv. 
31, Rev. xiv. 2, xviii. 22, and the in- 
stances specified by Grimm, Zez. s.v. 


Cuap. XIV. 7, 8. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


267 


ainos cite KiOdpa, éav Siactodyv Tois POdyyous ut) 8B, TAS 


\ x \ 
yvoobijceras 76 avdovpevoy %) TO KiGapifouevov ; ® Kal yap éav 


adnrov pov cadtuy— 6@, Tis TapacKevdceta cis TONELOD ; 


The general term was probably here 
used that the more distinctive term 
~bdyyos (Wisdom xix. 17: comp. Rom. 
x. 18) might follow in association with 
diacToAh: pwvh being the sound gene- 
rally, p@éyyo: (raxets cal Bpadeis ofets Te 
kal Bapeis, Plato, 7im@us, 80 A), the 
separate portions of sounds, the waves 
of the general stream. For an account 
of the two instruments here mentioned, 
see Smith, Dict. Antig. p. 720 sq., p. 
1130 sq, 

SiartoAny] ‘distinction, Rom. iii. 22, 
x. 12 (Hesych. S:dxpiois, Sialpecis) ; 
Suid. d:aydépnots here apparently not 
in any technical sense, or equivalent to 
didornua (Plato, Philebus, 17 Cc), but 
simply ‘distinctionem,’ Vulg., — ‘ vo- 
cem ita temperatum ut discerni queat,’ 
Calvin. The word is of common oc- 
currence in later Greek writers. In 
medical writers it is used in reference 
to the heart, arteries, etc., and is de- 
fined by Galen as &pots kal ofov émavd- 
oTacis Kapdias, aptnpi@y x.T.A.. Def. 
Med. Vol. 11. p. 255 (Paris, 1679). 

THs yvarOjoeTat K.T.A.] ‘how shall it 
be known what is piped or what its 
harped ?’ not ‘or harped,’ Auth., the 
article being studiously repeated in the 
original to mark alike in each case, 
pipe and harp, the avAoduevov or the 
KiBapi(ouevoy. Meyer calls attention to 
the unsuitable nature of the illustra- 
tion if the speaking with tongues had 
been merely speaking in foreign lan- 
guages. It is certainly probable that 
the yA@ooats Aade in this Epistle is 
commonly used in reference to ecstatic 
forms of prayer, etc. (see notes on ch. 
xii. 10); but it would be over-pressing 
an illustration to use it as helping to 
settle a question so debatable as that 


alluded to. Unknown languages, vol- 
ubly uttered, might be to those who 
heard them just as bewildering as 
musical sounds without intervals and 
proper.articulation. 

8. Kal yap édv &SnAov k.t.A.] ‘Aor 77 
the trumpet also give an uncertain 
voice ;’ the yap confirming by the men- 
tion of a yet further example, and the 
kal, with a slightly descensive force (see 
notes oz Phil. iv. 12) marking that 
example as a still stronger one, the 
odAmvyé not having, like the aiads or 
the «:@dpa, a regular succession of mu- 
sical intervals. For an account of this 
instrument, see Smith, Dict. Antig. p. 
1170. On the use of ral ydp, see notes 
on ch. xi.9. The order oadAmyé pwvhv 
(Tisch., Westc. and Hort) seems doubt- 
ful. The term &inaos (Luke xi. 44, 7 
bvnucia Ta &SyAa) marks the want of 
clearness in the sound, so that when 
the trumpet ‘spake unto the armed 
throng’ the hearer could not under- 
stand the meaning of the call; ‘aliter 
enim Classicum canitur, aliter Recep- 
tus,’ Beza. tis TapacKevaoeTaL 
eis wédepov] ‘who shall prepare himself 
Jor war, ‘quis parabit se ad bellum,’ 
Vulg. There does not seem any reason 
for deviating from the usual meaning 
of méAeuos; the trumpet-call may just 
as easily be understood of the summons 
to war as the 7b mapountikdy pmédos 
(Elian, Var. Hist. 11. 44) to wdxn and 
to immediate conflict: see Num. x. 9, 
éav efeAOnre cis réAcuov ... Kal onuavetTe 
Tas odAmytt, Ezek. vii. 14, cadmtoate 
év oaAmiyyt... Kal ovK %ort mopevduevos 
eis Toy méAeuoy: comp. also ch. xxxiii, 
3. The preposition eis marks the di- 
rection and destination of the Td mapa- 
oxevd{erda: see Winer, Gr. § 49. a 


268 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. XIV. 9, Io. 


%ottws Kai dpeis Sia Ths yAwoons éav fi) eVonwov Aoyov dare, 


Tas yrwoOnoeTta TO NaAOVpmEVOY ; ExecOe yap Eis dépa AadodrTES. 


10 a > , L a SEAN ? ’ \ vee 
TOOQAUTA, €L TUXOL, Ev) pwovav €lolv EV KOOL@, KAL OUOEV 


10. elaly] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly 


preponderating authority: Rec., éoriv. 


The a’tav which Rec. inserts after ovdév 


is rejected by the critical authorities above mentioned, and upon nearly the 


same preponderance of evidence. 


c.5,and compare Bernhardy, Syzz. p. 
210. 

g. otrws kal tpeis K.T.A.] 6.50 also ye, 
if by the tongue ye utter not speech easy 
to be understood:’ application of the 
foregoing illustrations to the Corin- 
thians. the duets and bia THs yAdoons 
being closely associated (comp. ch. vi. 
4), so as to keep up the force and per- 
tinence of the illustration: ‘so ye too, 
—just as it has been shown in the 
case of these lifeless instruments, — if 
by that which is your organ of utter- 
ance ye utter not intelligible speech, 
how, etc.’ The term etonuos (Hesych. 
ednAos, pavepds, Suid. wepipavys) is a 
Gm, Aeydu. in the N.T., though of 
common occurrence from Atschylus 
downwards : it is here used in reference 
to the clear (‘manifestum,’ Vulg.) and 
intelligible nature of the Adyos: comp. 
Plutarch, J/or. 776 B, where it is asso- 
ciated with évap8o0s and tpavos. 
toeoBe yap cis dépa Aadodvres] ‘for ye 
will be speaking into the air:’ the 
auxiliary verb with the participle mark- 
ing the state to which they will have 
become reduced; see Winer, Gr. § 
45.5. This usage is not by any means 
uncommon in classical Greek: see the 

‘numerous examples in Kiihner, Gv. § 
353: 4. 3, and comp. Stallb. on Plato, 
Phed. 100 D, Gorg. 500 Cc. On the ex- 
pression eis dépa AaAciv, comp. ix. 26, 
and notes 77 loc. 

10. Toradra, el TUXOL, K.T.A.] § There 
are, it may chance, so many kinds of 
voices in the world:’ a further and 


more cogent example of the wholly un- 
profitable nature of this Adyos &onuos 
against which the Apostle is contend- 
ing: from illustrations connected with 
sounds, he now passes to languages. 
There is some little doubt as to the 
exact meaning of the ei rdxor. With 
numerals, it appears sometimes to 
answer to our ‘thereabouts’ (dé€ka per, 
ei tUxX01, Galen), but commonly conveys 
little more than the familiar acc. 
absol. tuxév (Kiihner, Gr. § 487. 1), ‘it 
may chance,’ ‘it may be,’ the ef with 
the optat. preserving its true idea of 
subjective possibility (Winer, Gy. § 41. 
2): comp. ch. xv. 37, and the long list 
of examples cited by Wetst. zz doc. 
The rendering ‘for example’ (comp. 
Vulg. ‘ut puta’) cannot be lexically 
substantiated, and appears only to have 
arisen from the common use of the 
formula in the mention of matters or 
details in regard of which the writer 
did not affect to be accurate; comp. 
Arrian, ict. Ul. 1, mpds BAAO wey 
bp&puev Kiva mepundra, mpds AAO 5é tov, 
mpos &AAO Bé, ei oTW TUXOL, anddva (cited 
by Wetst.). The Versions all over- 
look the expression, unless the ‘ecce 
enim’ of Syr. is intended to represent 
it. So too Chrys., Theod.: Theoph., 
al., apparently misunderstand it. 

The gwvai here referred to are ob- 
viously languages (Chrys., al.), the 
term yAdéooa being avoided as in this 
context likely to be ambiguous. To 
refer the term to the voices in’ the 
general realm of nature (‘ voces natu- 


CHAP. XIV. 10-12. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


269 


adovov. Uday odv pn ida THY Sdvauw THs Pevijs, Ecouar TO 


12 


AarodvTt BapBapos Kai 6 Aadrw@Y ev ewol BapBapos. obras 


RK a > \ i > / \ \ > w A 
Kal vpels, emrel CndtwrTal €oTe TVEVMATWY, TPOS TIV GiKadOMAY THS 


rales animalium,’ Calvin) is out of 
harmony with what foliows. 

Kal ovdiv &dwvov] ‘and no hind of them 
zs without its voice,’ scil. without signifi- 
cation, without its characteristic of 
intelligibility. Languages are designed 
to carry meaning to those who use 
them and hear them. If they were 
&pwvor they would cease to be dwvat at 
all: ‘quodvis eorum suam habet otes- 
tatem, dvvamv,’ Bengel. 

II. édv obv pi ciSw K.T.A.] ‘Lf then L 
Should not know the meaning of the 
voice :’ statement, by means of the 
collective otv (see notes on ch. vii. 27) 
of the obvious result as based on the 
preceding verse, and especially the last 
clause of it,— the fact that no kind of 
the many languages in the world is de- 
void of signification, or fails to convey 
intelligible meaning. Things being so 
(otv), what the Apostle states must 
naturally follow, viz. that if, in any par- 
ticular case, he did not know the mean- 
ing thus conceded to exist, he and the 
one speaking the language, as far as 
understanding each other, would be 
BdpBapo, the one to the other; comp. 
Baiumlein, Gr. Partik. s. v. obv, 3, p. 
179, whose discussion of this particle 
(though his conception of its primary 
idea seems open to question; comp. 
Kiihner, G7. § 508, note 3) deserves 
careful consideration. For ex- 
amples illustrative of this use of dvvauis 
(‘v2 atque Potestas, i. q. significatus, 
sermonis, Grimm), see Ast, Lex. Plat. 
s. v., and Grimm, Zex. s. v. 

BdpBapos] ‘a barbarian,’ one speaking 
another tongue than those with 
whom he is in contact. In BdpBapos 
and the apparently stronger term 
marlyyAwooos (see Pind. /sthm. v. [v1.] 


24) there is no idea of non-intelligibility 
of speech except so far as arises from 
the one speaking being a foreigner and 
speaking a foreign language: he was 
not a éuoyAéooos: compare Herod. 
flist. U1. 158, BapBdpous S¢ mdvras of 
Aiyirriot kadéovattovs mh) ior duoyAdo- 
govs. The word is found in Sanscrit 
under the form darbara (see Curtius, 
Ltym. § 273, p. 291) and may be either 
derived from sound or some primitive 
word, éarbar or bard, implying stam- 
mering; see Fick, Jzdo-Germ. Wor- 
terb. p. 132. év épol] ‘77 me,’ Ze. 
‘in my judgment,’ zzzto me, ‘mihi,’ 
Vulg. The preposition here seems 
primarily to mark the spehre z which, 
and thence, by a very natural transi- 
tion, the sort of tribunal defore which, 
the judgment was formed: see Winer, 
Gr. § 48. a. 1. d, and comp. notes on 
ch. vi. 2. 

12. obtws Kal tpets K.7.d.] ‘So also 
ye, since ye are earnestly desirous of 
spiritual manifestations ;’ general ap- 
plication of what has been already 
urged, the afrws xa) being more inclu- 
sive in its retrospect than in ver. 9; 
‘thus, in accordance with the illustra- 
tions that have been given (ver. 6-11) 
of the general principle that what is 
spoken should be intelligible (compare 
Hofmann), seek etc.? The clause ézeb 
K.T.A. specifies why the Corinthians 
should take the counsel here given es- 
pecially to heart. The expression 
mvevuatwy is not identical with tav 
myeupatix@y (ver. 1; Syr., Copt.) but, as 
in ch. xii. 10, indicates the varied man- 
ifestations wrought by the Spirit.— 
Spirit-workings, which especially were 
the object (gen. odject?, Winer, Gr. § 
30. I. a) of their (7A0s: comp. Hofmann 


270 


2 / Lal 7 id 
éxxdnolas Entetre wa mepiocevnte. 


mpocevyécOw iva dvepunvedy. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. XIV. 12-14 


18 Ai0 6 NaAY YAwoon 


4 gay yap Tpocevyopar yrwooon, 


13. Aid] So Lachm., Tisch.. Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on greatly pre- 


ponderating authority: Rec., didmep. 


zx loc., who, however, finds more in the 
term (‘spirits,’ rather than the one 
Spirit) than it is apparently intended 
to convey. m™pos Tv oikoSopzy 
K.7.A.] ‘seek unto the edifying of the 
church, that ye may abound (in them) ;’ 
the words mpds oikod, Tis éxkA. being 
studiously put forward as that which 
was to be regarded as the special ob- 
ject of the (nretre: mepicceve Suds ev 
avtois BovAoua, pdvov by eis rd Kown 
cuupepoy ata weraxerpi(nre, Chrys. In 
the iva mepicoednte the particle has 
what may be termed its sub-final, or 
secondary telic, force, the purpose of 
the (nre?re being merged in the object 
to which the action was directed: see 
notes on ch. iv. 2, ix. 18, al., and in 
reference to this approximation of the 
final sentence to the objective or illa- 
tive sentence, Donalds. Gr. § 605; 
comp. notes on ver. I. 

13. Aw 6 Aad@y K.7.A.] ‘ Wherefore 
he that speaketh in a tongue let him 
pray (therein) in order that he may in- 
terpret ;’ exhortation flowing from 
what has preceded, and introducing 
the explanation (vv. 14-19) of how it 
was that speaking with tongues must 
be regarded as unfruitful: on the use 
of 6:4, see notes oz Gal. iw. 31. The 
difficulty in the present verse lies in the 
interpretation of fva. At first sight it 
seems natural to regard it, somewhat 
like the ta above, as introducing the 
subject and purport of the prayer (see 
notes oz Phil.i. 9), and as specifying 
what the 6 Aad@y yAdéoon ought regu- 
larly to pray for: atrnoal, dno, Tov 
dedwxdta gor Td TaY yAwTTaY xdpioua, 
mpooGeivat kal Td THs Epunvetas, Theod., 
al. ; ra wap’ Eavrod cioayérw, Chrys. But 


the objection seems conclusive that mpo- 
oevxeorOau in this verse must be regarded 
as exactly used under the same aspect 
as the mpooedxwuat in the confirmatory 
verse that follows, and so as indicating 
prayer in an ecstatic state, praying 
with tongues. If this be admitted, and 
it seems difficult to resist the argu- 
ment, then #va will have its ordinary 
telic force, and the tenor of the exhor- 
tation will be that the speaker with 
tongues is to use his gift, not for dis- 
play of his powers, but in prayer, in 
order that he may, so praying, have 
the gift of interpreting his prayer; 
‘innuitur precibus hoc impetratum 
iri,” Bengel.: compare Winer, G7. 
§ 53. 9. 6, s.v. fva, but observe that the 
rendering there advocated (‘with the 
intention, design, of interpreting the 
prayer’) ovev-presses the force of the 
conjunction in this particular passage, 
and misses the fine shade of thought 
— that it was by prayer rather than by 
any other spiritual exercise, praising, 
giving thanks, etc., that he would have 
the power ot €punveia. The gloss, that 
there may be an interpreter’ (comp. 
Ewald) cannot possibly be maintained : 
the subject of d:epunvedn must be iden- 
tical with the subject of mpocevxécbw. 
14. édv yap mpowedvXopat yAooon] 
‘ For if I should pray in a tongue:’ 
confirmation of the direction given in 
the preceding verse in the form of an 
individualizing statement, as in verses 
6, 11; ‘loquitur ex sua persona, quo 
magis persuadeat,’ Estius. The ydp is 
placed in brackets by Lachm., Westc. 
and Hort, but appears to have pre- 
ponderating evidence in its favor. Its 
omission may have been due to the 


Cuap. XIV. 14, 15. 


x A 
TO TVEbpa ov TpocEvyeTal, O Sé vodS pou aKapTros éoTLV. 


1 CORINTHIANS. O71 


a 


1b of 


5 > YS 7 A 4 / \ \ A 
ovv éotiv; tpocevEouar TH TrvevpuTt, TpocevEouar Sé Kal TO 


want of clear recognition, on the part 
of transcribers, of the logical xexus 
between ver. 13 and ver. 14. 7rd 
Tveda pov mpomedxerar] ‘my spirit 
prayeth ;’ scil. the highest element of 
man’s composite nature (see especially 
notes oz 1 Thess. v. 23, and the ref- 
erences there specified), that in which 
the agency of the Holy Spirit is es- 
pecially seen and felt ; ‘Spiritus divini 
operationem suaviter patitur,’ Bengel ; 
see Delitzsch, B7d/. Psychol. Iv. 5, p. 
218 (Transl.),— whose interpretation, 
however, of this passage, though mainly 
right, is a little strained, and comp. 
notes oz Eph. iv. 23. The presence of 
the pronoun seems distinctly to pre- 
clude any other interpretation than 
that of the Auman spirit: the glosses 
of Chrys., al., according to which the 
mvedua is to be regarded as the xdpiopa 
given by ¢he Spirit, are not compat- 
ible with the use of the plain pos- 
sessive genitive, verified as it is by 


the vovs pov of the clause that fol-: 


lows. 6 8€ vods prov K.T.A.] 6 bzet 
my understanding is unfruitful ;’ bears 
no fruit to others; bynow éxetywy ph 
dexouevwy, Theod. To refer this to 
the speaker (éaur¢@, Chrys.) is clearly 
out of harmony with the whole tenor 
of the passage, in which oixodouy as re- 
gards others (verses 4, 5, 6, 12) is the 
prevailing thought. The vois is here, 
as distinguished from the mvedua, the 
reflective and so-called discursive fac- 
ulty, ‘pars intellectiva’ (Estius), the 
human tvevdua ‘quatenus cogitat et in- 
telligit’ (Olsh. Opzscula, p. 156), its 
outcoming in intellectual action, the 
context here obviously giving it this 
more limited meaning: comp. Cramer, 
Worterb. s.v. p. 439. The plain mean- 
ing of the verse would seem to be this, 
—‘when my mvedua prays in that 


ecstatic form of devotion which is 
implied by praying in a tongue, my 
mind, in regard of its faculty of making 
the substance of my prayer intelligible 
to others, is simply unfruitful, bears to 
them no edification or spiritual fruit.’ 
That there is any psychological im- 
possibility, as Heinriciseems to imply, 
in such a view of the passage, cannot 
very reasonably be maintained. For 
the fuller and more inclusive meaning 
of the word vois in St. Paul’s Epistles 
(it only occurs elsewhere in the N. T. 
in Luke xxiv. 45, Rev. xiii. 18, xvii. 9), 
see notes o7 Phil. iv. 7, and oz 1 Tim. 
vi. 5; and in regard of the derivation 
of the word, above, notes on ch. ii. 16. 
15. tlodvv éorly] ‘ How zs it then ?’ 
‘how then does the matter stand?’ 
‘quid ergo est,’ Vulg.: see ver. 26. 
The gloss of Syr., Copt., ‘ quid faciam,’ 
is not correct: this form, like the 
closely allied rf ody (Rom. iii. 9, vi. 15: 
very common in classical Greek with 
an ov following; Kiihner, Gr. § 386. 10), 
is simply designed to call attention, 
with some little alacrity, to the upshot 
of what has been said; comp. Acts 
xxi. 52, where this formula follows a 
brief historical preamble. 
mpomevfopat Ta mvevparte K.T.A.] ‘J wz// 
pray with the spirit (sc. with my spirit), 
and J will pray with the understanding 
also;’ the future here marking not 
mere futurity, but the principle which 
the speaker intended to follow (see 
Winer (Gr. § 40. 6, and comp. Kihner, 
Gr. § 387. 4), and the second member 
placing in gentle contrast (5¢) the 
further principle which the speaker 
also intended to follow, viz. that of 
intepreting whatsoever the spirit (in- 
fluenced by the Spirit) had given him 
the power of uttering. The datives 
are the datives of the zzstrument o1 


272 


voi’ Wao TO TvevpaTi, Ware dé Kal TO voi. 


b] a 7 fe } la) 
evAdoyys TVEVMATL, 0 avaTTANPaV 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. XIV. 15, 16. 


16 éqrel ea 


TOV TOTOY TOU idi@TOU TAS epEl 


16. evAoyis mveduari] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, (with 
[év] before mveduart), on very clearly preponderating authority: Rec., ebAoyhons 


A , 
TQ TvEvMATL. 


proximate cause. On the exact dif- 
ference between this and the genitive 
with did (ver. 19), see below, notes, and 
comp. Donalds. Gy. § 457. Wako 
TO TvebpatiK.T.A. ‘will sing praise 
with the spirit,and I will sing praise 
with the understanding also;’ te. *I 
will not only sing praise with my spirit, 
but will interpret what I sing.’ The 
term WaAAew (properly 7d dd daxtdAwy 
emubavety Tov Kopdav THs Avpas, Ltym. 
47.) is here probably used without any 
reference to any instrument (comp. 
James v. 13), but as denoting the 
singing of frazse : so frequently in the 
Psalms (LXX) ; compare Psalm vii. 18, 
ix. 11, al., and, with an instrument 
specified, Psalm lxx. 24, xcvii. 7. The 
verb is associated with «Oapi(ew (Herod. 
f7ist. 1. 155), and with dew (Eph. v. 10, 
Psalm xx. 14, xxvi 11, al.), and is ex- 
plained by Basil (2 Psalm xxix.) as 
avaméume wWardpwolas: see Suicer, 
Thesaur. Vol. 11. p. 1569. The 8 in 
this second member is omitted by 
Lachmann, and placed in brackets by 
Tregelles, and by Westc. and Hort. 
The external evidence may perhaps be 
considered preponderant. Internal 
considerations, however, seem to point 
the other way. 

16. émel édv evdoyrys KT.A.] ‘else if 
thou shouldest bless with the spirit, ‘si 
id facias solo spiritu.’ Bengel ; justifica- 
tion of what has preceded by the 
circumstances that must follow if the 
course specified were otherwise,— the 
émel, with its usual causal and retro- 
spective force, introducing the alterna- 
tive: see notes on ch. v. I0,° and 
Kihner, Gr. § 569.1.i. The ‘caterum’ 


of Clarom., Vulg., is rightly changed 
by Beza into ‘quandoquidem,’ which 
again naturally passes into the ‘ alioqui’ 
which represents the rendering of Syr. 
It seems clear from the context that 
but little distinction can here be drawn 
between evAoyety and edxapioreiy (ver. 
11); the former, probably, as Meyer 
suggests, implies thanksgiving under 
the form of praise to God, ‘quia 
maxime laudari solet Deus grata bene- 
ficiorum ejus commemoratione,’ Estius. 
To refer this to the celebration of the 
Holy Communion (Blunt, Wordsw.) 
does nnt seem suggested by the context, 
unless we consider the evxapiotia below 
as more particularly referring to that 
service, instead of being, as it seems to 
be, perfectly inclusive and general: éy 
Tats idSlas ebxapiotiais HToL mpocevxais, 
Cyril (Cramer, Caz.). 6 dava- 
TANPoV Tov TéTroV TOD iBLdToU] ‘Le that 
Jjilleth the place of the unlearned ;’ ‘he 
that is one of the many present who, 
as regards spirit-moved utterance, is 
unlearned, and an idiérns ;’ see Bengel 
in loc. There is some little doubt as 
to the meaning of rémov, viz. whether 
it has a purely local, or a deriva- 
tive, meaning (‘position,’ ‘situation’); 
whether, in fact, it is equivalent to 
édpay or to tdiw. Examples of the 
use of d&vamAnpody have been cited with 
regard to each of these last-mentioned 
words (e.g. Plato, Z7m.79 B, dvamAnpovv 
thy eSpay, and Joseph. Bell. Jud. v. 2. 
5) OTpariwrov tdtw avawAnpody), and 
either view equally suits the tenor of 
the passage. The latter (rdw) seems, 
however, more probable, as the Apostle 
is speaking throughout generally, and 


CuapP. XIV. 16, 17. 


tT CORINTHIANS. 


273 


5 ’ \ Sh n lal ’ / b] \ / > by 
To “Apny emi TH of evyapiatia ; émevd) TL eyers OVK oideV* 


17 \ \ \ a ’ a > Se see. PS > a 
ov Mev Yap KAAwS EVYapLoTEisS, GAN’ O ETEPOS OK OLKOdOMEtTAL. 


without any reference to locality: so, 
—as far as the meaning of rézos is 
concerned,— distinctly Cyril (Cramer, 
Cat.), év tater TH Tod Aaikod Keipevos: 
comp. Theod., tdiTnv Kare? toy év TE 
Aaik@ tTdyuatt TeTayuevov. The use of 
idié7ns is copiously illustrated by Wetst. 
im doc. It may mean either a private 
person, as opposed to one in office, in 
a profession, etc., or as distinctly in 
Acts iv. 13 (aypduparor kad idi@To), an 
unlearned or ignorant person. The 
former view is apparently taken by the 
patristic expositors (idiéTns, Tovréoriy, 
6 Aaixés, Theoph.), and, very distinctly, 
by Wordsw., and by some modern 
writers: the latter, however, is more 
probable both here and in ver. 24; 
comp. 2 Cor. xi. 6; see Suicer, Zhesaur. 
s.v. Vol. I. p. 1438. Sharply-marked 
distinctions between those in office 
and those not, do not seem to belong 
to this period. mos épet Td Auty 
K.T.A.] ‘how shall he say the Amen at 
thy giving of thanks?’ ethical use of 
the future ; see Winer, Gr. § 4o. 6, and 
comp. note on ver. 15. The expression 
auhv is the transliterated form of the 
Hebrew adverb ox, ‘verily,’ ‘truly’ 
(LXX. yévorre: from yas, ‘was firm ’), 
which appears to have been used not 
only in the ratification of solemn oaths 
(Num. v. 22), after denunciations 
(Deut: xy. a5: sqq:; Jer. xis'\5);vin 
public worship (Neh. viii. 6), etc., but 
also in the general service of the 
synagogue and of the Temple, after 
benedictions or otherwise (Buxtorf, 
Lex. s.v. p. 62 sq. Lips. 1875: comp. 
also Wetst. zz Jdoc.), from which it 
passed, at a very early period, into the 
Christian Church, and formed the 
customary close (hence the article) of 
prayer and thanksgiving (Justin. M. 
Apol. 1. 65, Dionys. of Alex. in Euseb. 


35 


fiist. Eccl. Vit. 9), of the Lord’s 
prayer (Cyril-Jer. Catech. xxi. 18), 
and — what is very noticeable — of the 
words of consecration in the Eucha- 
rist: see Swainson, Greek Liturgies, 
pages 68, 82, 130, 160. 198, al. The 
prep. éwi with the dat. marks, as usual, 
the close connection, in regard of 
position, of the auny with the ei- 
xapitia: see Donalds. Gr. § 483, 
Kihner, Gr. § 438. 11. 1, and comp. 
notes oz Phil. i. 3. érret82} K.T.A.] 
‘since or seeing he knoweth not what 
thou sayest ;’ reason for the foregoing 
question. On the use and meaning of 
émeidn, see notes o7 Phil. ii. 26. From 
this verse it would seem to follow that 
at least some portions of early Christian 
worship were extempore in their 
character; compare Bleek, Stud. u. 
&rit. for 1829, p. 70. 

17. ov piv yap Kadas K.7.d.] ‘For 
thou verily givest thanks well; the 
other, however (the idiérns), zs not 
edified ;’ confirmatory of the preceding 
question, the ydp having, however, 
more of its explanatory than its argu- 
mentative force; see notes oz Gal. ii. 
6, and compare Donalds. Gr. § 618. 
The emphasis rests on the prominently 
placed pronoun, ‘thou, on thy part, 
givest thanks well (being under the 
immediate influence of the Spirit; 
mvevuare Kivovmevos pbeyyn, Chrys.) ; he, 
however, who fills the place of the 
unlearned is in no degree the better for 
it.’ The skad@s is thus in no respect 
ironical. The second member, it will 
be observed, has &AAd answering to the 
preceding puev (Rom. xiv. 20, al.), in- 
stead of the more usual 6¢, it being 
the intention of the Apostle to give 
the statement it contains greater force 
and prominence: see Klotz, Devar. 
Vol. II. p. 3 sq. 


274 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. XIV. 18-20. 


Betyapiot® TH Oo, TavTwv tuov paddov Yywoon Aadw* 
19 Grr ev exxrAnalia Oérw Trévte Aoyous TO vol pov Aadijoar, wa 


Kal dAXous KaTHXITw, 7) Lupious Noyous ev YAwoon. 


Tongues are for the un- 
believing ; phrophesy- 


20° AdeAdol, uy mada yivere tais ppeciv, 


ing for believers, and even for the unbelieving. 


18. r@ Oc] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on greatly 


preponderating authority: Rec. adds mov. 


In what follows, yAéeon is 


adopted by Lachm., Tisch., Treg. (with margin), on what seems preponderating 


authority: Rec., Rev., Westc. and Hort. (with margin), yAdocais. 


On Aad@ 


there can be no doubt: Xec. alone adopts AaA@y, but on very patently insuffi- 


cient authority. 


19. TG vol] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly 
preponderating authority: Rec., 51a Tod vods. 


18. edXxapiord To Ow k.7.d.] ‘Lthank 
God I speak in a tongue more than you 
all:’ concluding statement (again in 
the form of a reference to himself 
personally) of the general sentiment 
embodied in the last five verses, viz. 
the indispensable need of speaking vol, 
as well as yAdoon. The words mdvtwv 
buay wadaAov x.7.A., regarded logically, 
form the objective or expository sen- 
tence (Donalds. Gr. § 584) dependent 
on the preceding edxapior&, but, being 
appended without the usual relative 
particle ér:, acquire a greater force and 
directness: see Winer, Gr. § 60. 9, and 
for examples of this omission with 
Oimat, oida, Sona, x.7.A. Kiihner, Gr. § 
584. I. a. The mardov x.7.A. implies 
that the Apostle not only had the gift, 
but had it in a higher degree: kal yap 
eye KéxTnuat, Kal budv mAéov, Chrys. 

19. GAAG év exkAnola K.T.A.] ‘ How- 
beit in the Church I had rather speak 
five words with my understanding :’ 
aaad having here its full adversative 
force (‘aliud jam hoc esse, de quo 
sumus dicturi,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. It. 
p- 2), and specifying what, in spite of 
the statement in the foregoing verse, 
was the real feeling of the Apostle on 
the subject: see Baumlein, Parti. s.v. 
Gadd, 3, p. 11. In the expression 0éAw 


%, the particle is regarded as a particle 
of proportion or comparison, corre- 
sponding to the idea of choice, prefer- 
ence, etc., involved in the verb: see 
Kihner, Gr. § 542. 1. 2, Klotz, Devar. 
Vol. 11. p. 589, and Winer, Gr. § 35. 2. 
On the meaning of ev ékkAneia, see 
notes on ch. xi. 18. The Apostle says 
that he had rather speak wth his un- 
derstanding, z.e. with the vods as the 
modifying instrument. The exact shade 
of difference between this and 4: Tod 
vods (Rec.) would seem to be this, — 
that in the latter case any possible 
idea of causation would be more dis- 
tinctly excluded: see Donalds. Gr. § 
457. Wa kal &dAovs kaTnX how] 
‘that I might instruct others also: 
purpose and object of this @éAev. On 
the use and meaning of katnxéw, which 
here, probably from the nature of the 
context, retains some tinge of its more 
restricted meaning (‘voce _instituo,’ 
Beza), see notes oz Gal. vi. 6, and 
comp. Suicer, 7hesaur. Vol. Il. p. 79. 


20-25. Profitless nature of tongues 
and superiority of prophecy, even in the 
case of unbelievers. 

20. "ASdeAdol, pr wat8la K.7.d.] ‘Breth- 
ven, be not children in vour minds:’ 
continued exhortation on the subject 


CHAP. XIV. 20, 21. 


9 \ a , , a \ \ f / 
adda TH Kakia vytiatete, Tals Oe ppeciv Tédevon yiveoOe. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


275 


21 gy 


Lol , , a °E e r Io Kat > € aN e / 
TO VOM YEYPATTTAL OTL V ETEPOYAWOCOLS EV KELAEOLY ETEPWYV 


21. érépwv] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on prepon- 
derant external, and apparently clear internal, authority: Rec., érépois, —a very 


obvious correction. 


of tongues and prophecy, introduced 
by the conciliatory aeApoi; hence, not 
a TAnKTIKwTEpos Adyos, Theoph. ; comp. 
Estius. There is a tone of gentleness 
in the address, as well as of censure: 
the Apostle asks his converts not to 
play the part of children, and ‘ puerili 
quodam sensu,’ Est.) eagerly seek a 
gift which amazed rather than edified. 
The term ¢péves is a drat Aeyduevor in 
the N.T. It is used appy. equally with 
the singular (see the numerous exx. in 
Steph. Zhesaur. s.v. Vol. VIII, p. 1050), 
to denote the reasoning power, — here 
more on its reflective and discriminat- 
tive, than on its perceptive, side. There 
are no @yaGal diavora (Ammon. cited 
by Bengel) necessarily implied in the 
word; all that the Apostle seems to 
convey is that they were not to judge 
in this matter like children. They 
were to be réAcior tats ppeot,—iva fia- 
kolvwot tiva pwelw Kal wpeAmoTepa TOY 
xapioudtwy, Theoph. The dative marks 
the sphere to which the action is lim- 
ited, and is thus of asemi-local nature: 
see Winer, Gr. § 31. 6, and compare 
notes oz Gal. 1. 22. There is 
some little doubt as to whether this 
verse should close the paragraph pre- 
ceding it, or commence that which fol- 
lows it. The critical edd. nearly all 
adopt the latter, and rightly, the ad- 
dress (a5eAgot) and the abruptness of a 
commencement with a quotation seem 
to confirm the placing of this verse as 
the opening of a fresh paragraph. 

GAAG TH Kakla vymidlere K.7.A.] ‘Low- 
beit (see on ver. 19) 22 regard of malice 
be babes, butin your minds be full-grown 
(men) ;’ ‘do not be children in regard 


of this speaking with tongues, in regard 
of malice, however, be very babes.’ 
The use of the dative kakia is similar 
to that of ppecivy (see above), but has 
less of the semi-local character, the 
present dative having passed by a nat- 
ural transition into a simple dative of 
‘reference:’ comp. Phil. iii. 5, al. The 
form vynmdew is another dm. Aeydu. in 
the N.T., and of limited occurrence in 
general Greek : ynmiaxeveww (ta Tots v7- 
miois apud(ovtra mpattew, Hesych.) is 
found in Homer, //. XXII. 503; vnmd- 
xe, in Apoll. Rhod. and Moschus. 
On réAeot, comp. Eph. iv. 13 and notes 
im loc.; and on kakia (‘ malice,’ ‘animi 
pravitas,’ Calvin; ‘vitiositas,’ Cicero, 
Tusc. WV. 15), see Cremer, Worterd. p. 
328, and notes oz Zh. iv. 316 

21. év TO vépnw yéyparrar] ‘Jz the 
scil. in the O.T., 
véuos being similarly used in this more 
inclusive sense in reference to the 
Psalms; comp. John x. 34, Rom. iii. 
Q: vowov 5€ Thy mada ypaphy mpoanyd- 
pevoe, Theod.; see Suicer, Zhesaur. 
Vol. 11. p. 419. The passage referred 
to is Isa. xxviii. I1, 12, in which the 
prophet is censuring the frivolity and 
perversity of the ruling classes of Ju- 
dza, and retorting upon them in their 
own language: they complained of 
the iterations of the prophet’s com- 
mands ; they were to hear this mono- 
tone in the harsh words of the Assyrian 
invader; see Cheyne zz /oc. The 
Apostle’s citation is a free, but sub- 
stantially correct, rendering of the 
Hebrew: it closely approaches the 
rendering given in Origen, exafl., in 
Zoc., with which it is noted that the 


law it ts written:’ 


276 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. XIV. 21, 22. 


an fel / / 
Aadiyjow TO aG TOUT, Kal OVS odTws cicaxotcovTal wou, AéyeL 


Ko 22 4 e XG , fey > > lal a5 
uptos. WOTE UL YAWOOAL ELS ONMELOV ELOLY OV TOLS TrLOTEV 


version of Aquila mainly accords, viz. 
€v EtepoyAdoous Kal év xelAcow Erépois 
Aadfow TH AaG TobTw. The purport of 
the citation seems to be, that, just as 
the Jews of old who refused to hear 
God speaking by the prophet were 
made to hear Him speaking in the 
harsh commands of the foreign in- 
vader, so they who refused to believe 
now had to hear as their chastisement 
the (to them) totally unintelligible ut- 
terances of tongues and ecstasy. 

Stu év érepoydocots K.T.d.] ‘Fur with 
men of strange tongues and with the 
lips of strangers will I speak unto this 
people ;’ the 81: here apparently not 
being recitativum, but answering to 
the "9 of the original (‘yea,’ Cheyne: 
‘nay,’ Rev.), and the éy marking the 
personal sphere in which the action 
takes place: comp. 2 Cor. xiii. 3, Heb. 
i, 2,and see Winer, Gr.s. v. év, § 48. 
3. a The word érepdyAwaoos, taken 
by itself, simply means ‘qui peregrinA 
lingua utitur’ (Grimm), and is opposed 
to éudyAwooos. In the original passage 
it refers to the Assyrian, whose lan- 
guage, though allied to the Hebrew, 
was still sufficiently different to seem 
a strange tongue to those to whom it 
was to be spoken: see Cheyne zz Zoc. 
Both the words, then, and the original 
context might seem to favor the view 
of the speaking with tongues being 
really speaking in foreign languages 
(comp. notes on ch. xii. 10), and not in 
ecstatic utterances. This, however, 
would be clearly to over-press an z//us- 
tration, which was suggested to the 
Apostle rather by the analogy of his 
own vnmd(ere (ver. 20), and by the 
words of the prophecy (ver. 10) just 
preceding the citation. The real matter 
is, —not the peculiar character of the 
utterances, but the simple fact that 


that they were unintelligible to those 
towhom they were spoken; added to 
which, perhaps, is the further and more 
latent use of the prophetic illustration 
that as speech ina strange tongue was 
a chastisement on unbelief then, so, to 
a certain extent, it may be regarded as 
so now: comp. (Hofmann zx Zoc. 
Kal 008’ ottws k.7.A.] ‘and not even thus 
will they hearken unto me:’ not even 
when they have been spoken to in the 
manner just specified; ikavdv jv abrods 
exmAjgtat Td Oaidwa, Chrys.: comp. ch. 
xi. 28. The eicaxodcovra: is no doubt 
designedly used as a stronger form 
than the simple verb (comp. LXX, ov« 
NOéAncay axovev), but it must be re- 
membered that there is no such stronger 
meaning conveyed in the original. The 
compound only occurs in four other 
passages, viz. Matt. vi. 7, Luke i. 13, 
Acts x. 31, Heb. v. 7, but in all with a 
sense Clearly stronger than that of the 
simple form: comp. Grimm, Zev. s. v. 
22. More at yAwooat k.T.A.] ‘So then 
the tongues are for a sign :’ consequence 
flowing from the tenor of the preceding 
citation; the éore, as usual, denoting 
‘consecutionem alicujus rei ex antece- 
dentibus’ (Klotz, Devar. Vol. 1. p. 
771), and when used, as here, with the 
indicative, implying that what is stated 
is a simple unconditioned fact; see 
Kiihner, Gr. § 586. 3, and notes oz 
Gal. ii. 13. The Apostle states, as a 
consequence from what he has alleged, 
that the yAéoouw, in the forms now 
under consideration, not merely are a 
onuetov, but serve as a onueiov, are de- 
signed to be such (Acts xiii. 47, Heb. 
viii. 10; see Winer, Gr. § 29. 3 2), 
without, however, pausing distinctly to 
specify what peculiar aspect the o7- 
ueiov was to be supposed to wear. 
This particular aspect has been very 


Cuap. XIV. 22, 23. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


277 


ovow adra Tois atiatots, 9 5é Mpopytera ov TOs aTriaTOLs GAA 


TOLS TLOTEVOUCLV. 


23°Kav obv ovvedOn 7 €xkAnoia Ody eTrl TO 


avto Kal mdvres NaAdTW YAdooas, eicéOwour, 5é idiaTaL 4 


differently estimated. The patristic 
expositors regard it as involving @aiua 
(Severian) or ékmAntw (Chrys., Theod., 
al.); others, as punitive (Beza) and 
judicial. That there may be this ju- 
dicial aspect may perhaps be conceded 
from the tenor of the citation, from 
the xAevaouds on the part of some at 
the first manifestation (Acts ii. 13), 
and from the épotow or: paiveode of ver, 
23: still, as the word ompetoy is, as 
Chrys. rightly observes, of neutral 
meaning, it seems best to leave it un- 
defined, and as wearing one aspect to 
one class of &moro: and another to 
another. To regard it as practically 
otiose (DeWette, Hirzell, Stud. u. Krit. 
for 1840, p. 121 sq.), does not seem 
consistent with the tenor of the whole 
context. ov Tois TMoTevovTLW 
K.t.d.| ‘20t to them that believe, but to 
the unbelieving :’ studied specification 
of those for whom the onyetoy was in- 
tended. The participle is perhaps 
designedly used, as including those 
who were morol as well as those who 
were becoming so. The amoro: are 
unbelievers generally, the peculiar as- 
pect of their amoria, whether due to 
ignorance, stubbornness, or an averted 
will, being left undefined. In ver. 23 
it appears to have one aspect, in ver. 
24 another. % St mpodyrela 
K.T.A.] ‘but prophecy is not for the un- 
believing, but for them that believe :’ 
contrasted statement as to prophecy, 
expressed in a still more general form, 
and obviously not flowing from the 
citation. We have no ground for sup- 
plying eis onueiéy éorw in this second 
member (Chrys., Theoph., Hofmann, 
al.), as it could not correctly be said 
that prophecy (as understood in this 


context; see notes on ch. xii. 10) was 
designed to be a onuetoy to believers: 
it was, and it was designed to be, much 
more. Nor can the conduct of the 
amortos specified in ver. 24 be urged 
against the general statement of the 
clause: it was due, not to the mpooyrela 
as such, but to its effects as operative 
in the congregation, and manifested 
by its members. 

23. "Hav otv ovvédOy] ‘ Zf then the 
whole Church should come together to 
one place ;’ confirmatory illustration, 
flowing logically, by means of the co/- 
lective obv (see above, notes on ver. II, 
and on ch. vii. 27), from the preceding 
verse, —the present verse confirming 
the first statement in ver. 22, ai yAdéooa 
els Onuetdv Elo ov ToOls TLgTEVOVTLY GAAG 
On the ém 7d avrd, see 
notes on ch. xi. 20, and on ch. vii. 5. 
Kal waves K.T.A.] ‘ard all should speak 
with ;? not necessarily, all at the same 
time, but, in the customary manner, 
and in all probability, in succession, 
one after another: comp. ver. 27, which 
would seem to be, not so much a 
wholly new regulation, as one confirm- 
atory of existing practice. 
cio MOworv St K.7.A.] ‘and there should 
come in persons unlearned or unbeliev- 
ing. There is here considerable diffi- 
culty as to the term (ié:#7Tns, especially 
in its present connection. It would 
seem prima facie natural to regard it 
as identical, in meaning and reference, 
with idié7ns, ver. 16,—and so, as im- 
plying a member of the Christian com- 
munity, though, it may be, not yet 
baptized : idiérny Aégyer Tov wh Bamric- 
6évra, Severian. When, however, it is 
remembered (1) that while in ver. 16 
the particular form of expression rdv 


Tots amlorots. 


278 


1 CORINTATAWN Ss: 


Cuap. XIV. 23, 24. 


” ? > Lal id / v2.4 a5 p>) \ / / 
ATLOTOL, OUK EPOVTLV OTL paiverbe ; €aV OE TTAVTES Tpopnrevwc, 


ld /, ‘ a ’ 
elaéhOn SE Tis amriotos 4 idiwTns, EX€yxeTaL bTO TavTwY, ava- 


23. AaA@ow yAdoous] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on 
very distinctly preponderating authority: Rec., yAdooas Aadwow. 


témoyv Tov idimTov, taken in connection 
with the centext, seems to constrain us 
to regard the ié:é7ns as in some sense 
a Christian, here there are no such 
modifying adjuncts,— nay that the con- 
text (id@7a: 2 &micto) distinctly points 
the other way; (2) that as ver. 22 only 
speaks of two classes morevovtes and 
&morot, SO, in this verse, which logically 
depends on ver. 22, only two classes 
are to be looked for, the é«xAnoia, or 
believers, on one side, and non-believers 
on the other,— when all this is remem- 
bered, we can hardly resist the convic- 
tion that in this verse and in ver. 23 
the i&@ra: are wot Christians, but 
unlearned persons who belonged to the 
general ranks of the &moro, and are 
separately specified as being ignorant 
non-believers, rather than unbelievers 
and opponents: see Hofmann 77 /oc., 
and the suggestive comments of Ulrich, 
Stud. u. Krit. for 1843, p. 420 sq. 
ovk épotow Sri palverQe] ‘ will] they not 
say that ye are mad ;’ comp. Acts xxvi. 
24, and, as regards the general impres- 
sion produced on the &morto, Acts, ii. 
13. Though the tongues are a onuetov 
to the unbelieving (ver. 22), yet here, 
when numbers are concerned, and no 
individual application possible, they 
become only eis onuctoy avTiAeyouevoy 
(Luke ii. 34), thus verifying the ov® 
oUt ws.cigakovcovral wou of the prophecy. 
24. éav 8¢ mavtes tpod.] ‘But zf all 
should prophesy,—set forth, under the 
influence of the Spirit, vital doctrine 
and heart-searching truth; see notes 
on ch. xii. 10. On the mdytes, see 
above, ver. 23, and comp. ver. 31. 
wis &rirtos 7 uadTns] ‘one unbelieving 
or unlearned:’ singular, and in a 


changed order to that in ver. 23, be- 
cause in this verse it is the case of the 
&moros, rather than of the more neutral 
idiérns, that appears to come most 
into consideration; ‘7zdofa obiter ad- 
ditur, ob rationem ejus non plane 
disparem,’ Bengel. In the former case 
when an influx of several of each class 
is alluded to, those less opposed are 
specified first, and those more definitely 
hostile afterwards: both, however, 
form the same rough judgment on the 
manifestations. It is only in the case 
of individuals that the xdowwpa exer- 
cises its blessed influence,— but it does 
so, even though that xdpioue was 
not specially designed for the class 
(ver. 22) from which the individual 
came. The effect, however, on those 
for whom it was designed would be all 
the greater, and the correctness of the 
latter half of ver. 22 the more substan- 
tiated. éhéyxerat td TavTov] 
‘he zs convicted by all:’ each one as he 
prophesies in order (ver. 31) brings 
home to him, with accumulating force, 
all his inward sinfulness, and reveals 
all the gloomy shadows that rest upon 
his inner life: compare John iii. 20. 
The case of Augustine is cited by 
Edwards zz /oc., but it can hardly be 
said to be parallel. It was some time 
(‘gradatim quidem ’) before Augustine’s 
heart was opened, and before he passed 
from the words and language of 
Ambrose to the matter they set forth: 
see August. Confess. v. 24. 

dvaxplverat td mavtwv] ‘he is judged 
by all ;’ dijudicatur ab omnibus,’ Vulg., 
Clarom. Each inspired speaker in his 
avdepiots of the human heart, its 
évOuunoewy Kal évvoi@y (Heb. iv. 12), so 


Cuap. XIV. 24, 25. 


tr, CORINTHIANS: 


279 


Kpivetat id TavT@v, ™ra KpuTTa THS Kapdias avTodD pavepa 


/ , nr A 
ivetat, Kal oUTws Tec@Vv él TpOcwWTOV TpocKUYnTE TO Oca 
? c 4 ? 


> i e ” e \ b] e an b] , 
aTayyéArXov Ott dvT@s 0 Oeos ev vpiv EoTiv. 


25. Ta Kpurr& tis Kapdias] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, 


on very greatly preponderating authority: Rec. prefixes kal otrw. 


In what 


follows, the order Bvtws 6 Oeds is adopted by Lachm., Tisch. (omits 6), Treg., 
Rev., Westc. and Hort, on greatly preponderating authority: Rec., 6 Geds dvTws. 


reveals to the &moros 4 idimtns the 
inward state of his heart that he feels 
each utterance to be a very judgment 
on his own individual case; ‘ audientis 
conscientia judicium suum ex doctrina 
concipit,’ Calvin. On dvaxplrera, see 
notes on ch. ii. 15. 

25. Ta KpuTTa THs KapSias k.T.A.] 
‘the secrets of his heart are made mant- 
fest ;’ the inner thoughts, feelings, and 
movements of his heart are all set 
forth, so vividly and truly depicted in 
the addresses of the  spirit-moved 
mpopjta, that the &maros or, it may be, 
isié7 ns, seems to see, as it|were, all the 
hidden things of his own heart (‘quz 
prius in corde ipsius ita latebant ut 
nec ipse, qualia essent, agnosceret,’ 
Estius) laid bare to himself and to 
others. On the meaning of rapdia (the 
centre of feeling, willing, thinking, and 
even of moral life), see notes oz Phil. 
iv. 7, o2 1 Tim. i. 5, and Delitzsch, 
Biol. Psychol. WW. 1, Pp. 295 sq: 
(Transl.). kal ottws K.T.A.] Sand 
thus, falling down on his face he will 
worship God,’—thus édeyxomevos, avakpt- 
vouevos, and, as we might say, TeTpa- 
xndiouévos, (Heb. iv. 13), he will wor- 
ship God, showing publicly by outward 
act (weody «.7.A.) the depth and reality 
of his convictions. The participle 
meowy is here probably simply zemporal, 
specifying the act closely preceding the 
mpooktynots, and practically forming a 
part of it: see Acts x. 25, and comp. 
Donalds. Gr. § 577. The construction 
of mpookuvety with a dat. is peculiar to 


later Greek ; comp. Lobeck, Pzryz, p. 


463. The verb only occurs here in 
St. Paul’s Epp., but is used frequently 
by St. Matthew (with dat. except ch. 
iv. 10) and St. John (with both cases, 
apparently without distinction ; comp. 
John iv. 23), twice by St. Mark (with 
both cases,—according to best reading), 
and occasionally (with an accusative; 
more often without any case) by St. 
Luke: see Winer, Gr. § 31. 1, 2. 

dmayyé\Awv Ste K.t.A.] ‘proclaiming 
that verily God is among you:’ the 
participle here denoting the concomi- 
tant act (Sia tay epywy mpdrepov duoro- 
yar, eita kal did Tay fpynudtwy, Chrys.), 
adding it, as it were, as a further de- 
tail: comp. Homer, //. 1. 349, "AxtAAeds 
daxpicas étdpwv &pap ECeTo. . . dpdwy em 
olvora mévrov, and see Kithner, Gr. § 
389. 7. e. This proclaiming would 
naturally be at the time of the Chris- 
tian assembly, but might well also be 
elsewhere; ‘vel in ecclesia, vel etiam 
foras,’ Bengel. Its tenor would be, 
that ‘beyond all doubt (the &8rTws 
being prominent and emphatic; comp. 
Gal. ili. 21, and notes 77 /oc.), God is 
in the midst of you:’ the év buiv per- 
haps pointing more to the divine pres- 
ence as recognized in the assembled 
body, than as felt to be in the souls of 
the mpopntevovres. The év may here 
obviously have either meaning, 7 
(‘in animis vestris’), or among (‘in 
coetu vestro’): the latter perhaps as 
a little more in harmony with the de- 
picted state of the now agitated 
speaker : his one feeling would be that, 
verily, ‘Deum adesse suis,’ Calv, #7 doc. 


280 


In your meetings ob- 
serve due order, wheth- 
er in speaking with 
tongues or prophesying. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. XIV. 26, 27. 


8 Ti obv éotiv, aderApoil ; Grav cuvépynobe, 
&xactos wWardwov éxet, Siwdaynv Exel, atro- 


‘ x” a v € ! ¥ / ‘ > 
Karu Exel, YAMTCAY EXEL, EPUNVELAY EXEL* TAVTA TPos oLKo- 


26. €xacros] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on prepon- 


derating authority: Rec. adds bpuar. 


The same critical authorities adopt 


the order aroxdaviny %xe1, yA@oou exes (Rec. inverts the order), on very greatly 
preponderating authority; and, finally, ywéo@w (Rec., yeveoOw), on vastly pre- 


ponderating authority. 


26-33. Regulations for the orderly 
exercise of spiritual gifts in Christian 
assemblies, in reference to speaking with 
tongues and prophesying. 26. Tt otv 
éorly, adedol] ‘ How zs it then, breth- 
ven?’ not ‘quid igitur facto opus est,’ 
Est., but, as in ver. 15, ‘how does the 
matter stand, after what has been said ?’ 
the ovv With the full collective force 
calling the reader’s attention to what 
has been stated, and what naturally 
flows from it: see Klotz, Devar. Vol. 
II. p. 717 sq. The answer at once 
follows, beginning with the statement 
of the facts of the case, and closing 
with the independent sentence mavta 
mpods oixodouny ywvéc8w, which serves as 
a common rule for each specified case, 
and is practically the real answer: 
compare ver. 12. érav 
ouvépXnode «.t.A.] ‘wienever ye come 
together, each one has a psalm ;’ ‘each 
one of those specially endowed has 
ready a psalm,’ the distributive €xaoros 
(derived from a root €[év], and a Sansc. 
root a-s, scil. ‘unus quotuscumque ;’ 
Curtius, Gr. Ztym. No. 631) referring 
to the mvevuatixol now under considera- 
tion, and the é@ye: seeming to imply 
that he had it, as it were, within (‘in 
promptu habet,’ Estius), ready to be 
uttered. The waduds here mentioned 
" was probably a hymn of praise, under 
the influence of the Spirit, and so ex- 
temporaneous in its nature, but, as 
yA@ooat are subsequently specified, 
intelligible to the hearers: comp. ver. 
15, and see Eph. v. 19 and notes zz 


foc. Tertullian (Afol. cap. 39) in de- 
scribing the ‘ convivia’ of the early 
Christians, notices how ‘ ut quisque de 
scripturis sanctis vel de proprio ingenio 
potest, provocatur in medium canere 
Deo.’ A sermon on this text will be 
found in Lightfoot, Works, Vol. vii. p. 
29 sqq. (Lond. 1825). Si8axrv 
exer] ‘Lath a teaching ;’ not so much ‘a 
doctrine,’ Auth., Evans, which conveys 
too much the idea of formulated dogma, 
as ‘an instruction ;’ diddoKew amd xa- 
plowaros, Chrys.: see ver. 6 and notes 
arokdhupu exe] ‘hath 
a revelation ;’ has a divinely inspired 
communication, which he would most 
probably deliver in the character of a 
mpophtns ; see below verses 29, 30. 
yAdooav tea] ‘hath a tongue ;’ ie. 
Aare? yA@oon, ver. 27: has within him 
an utterance which will take the form 
of ecstatic speech. The épunvela is ap- 
propriately next specified, and the 
whole closed by the one great and 
common principle, which Chrysostom 
terms Tod Xpiotiavicpod Thy Kpntida Kar 
Tov Kavéva — Td Tovs TAHCLOY Bid TWavTwY 
@pedew : comp. Theod. zz Joc. On this 
rule and principle, and its practical ap- 
plications, see Harless, Chr. Ethics, § 
38, p. 327 (Transl.). 

27. elre yhoooy k.T.A.] ‘whether it be 
that anyone speaketh in a tongue ;’ 
first member of a distributive sentence; 
to which, however, there is no corre- 
sponding member, the structural form 
being gradually lost in the specific in- 
structions that follow, and never re- 


zn loc. 


CuHap. XIV. 27-29. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


281 


7 al a , x \ a 
Souiy ywéc0o. "elre ydoon Tis Nadel, KaTa Svo 1) TO TAEloTOV 


Tpeis, Kal ava mépos, Kal els Stepunvevérw: * cay O€ pur) 7 Sveppae 


/ fal aA 
veuTns, ouyatwo év éxKAnola, éavT@ Sé AadelTM Kai TO Dew. 


sumed where it might have been 
originally intended to reappear, viz. in 
ver. 29. Various examples of ana- 
colutha, more or less similar to the 
present, are noticed in Winer, Gr. § 
63.1%, 1. kata Svo 4} K.T.A.] 
‘let them speak, to the number of two or, 
at the most, three ;’ ‘duo aut ad sum- 
mum tres loquantur, scil. in uno con- 
ventu,’ Estius, the cara being used in 
its distributive sense (Winer, Gr. § 
AO... 40, Astibner, (G7r§. 1433, 1S: bv: 
kaTd, 3), and implying the limitation as 
to numbers in regard of the speakers. 
On this use of xatd as involving the 
idea of a measure (‘down to’), see the 
careful comments of Harrison, Greek 
Prep. p. 326 sq. (Philadelphia, 1860). 
There might be many desirous to 
speak, but it was to be kara 5vo 7 7d 
mAciotov Tpets. The verb Aadeirwoar is 
to be supplied after the xara dvo, being 
suggested by, and naturally flowing 
from, the preceding Aade?: see ex- 
amples in Kiihner, Gr. § 577. 2. i. 

Kal ava pcpos] ‘and by turn ;’ ‘unus, 
unus’ Syr., the preposition here serving 
to note the manner in which the action 
was to take place (comp. ava xpdros, 
‘intentis viribus’); it was to be on the 
principle of each having his tum, 
‘vicissim,’ Beza. The transition from 
this sense of the preposition to the 
purely distributive use (Mark vi. 40) 
is easy and obvious: comp. Kiihner, 
Gr. § 433, S.v. avd, 3, and see Harrison. 
Greek Prep. p. 165 sq. Most of the 
interpreters call attention to the in- 
ference that may be naturally drawn 
from this clause, that the Corinthian 
speakers with tongues often spoke to- 
gether and ovyxexupevos. els 
Sucppnvevérw] ‘let one interpret ;’ one, 


36 


—not two or more; xp) yap Tovs 
mapdvTas voc T& Acydueva, Theod. 

28. édv St pi} 1] Sueppnveurys] ‘due 7f 
there should be no interpreter ;’ scil. if 
neither the speaker should be able to 
interpret (comp. ver. 13), nor any one 
of those.sitting by: the words provide 
equally for either case. ovyato 
év exxAgola] ‘let him be silent, or (as 
better preserving the force of the pres. 
imperative) £eep selence in (the) Church,’ 
—scil. the speaker with tongues al- 
luded to in ver. 27. The transition 
from one nominative to another is per- 
fectly natural, and by no means un- 
common in Greek prose: see examples 
in Winer, Gr. § 67. 1.c. On the ex- 
pression éy éxxAnaia, see notes on ch. 
xi. 18. éauro 8 Aadettw K.1.A] 
‘and to himself let him speak and to 
God ;’ the éavtg being emphatic, and 
standing in contrast to assembled hear- 
ers (comp. ver. 26) in public. That he 
was to speak inwardly and inaudibly 
(‘tacitus et in corde loquatur sibi ipsi,’ 
Est.,comp.Chrys.) isnot only zo¢ implied 
in the words, but really contrary to the 
use of AagAew in this whole passage, 
where it clearly implies open speech. 
On the meaning and derivation of 
Aadety (‘ vocem ore emittere ’), see notes 
on Tit. ii. 1, and oz Col.iv.3. The 7@ 
@eg@ directs that the utterance was to 
be poured forth, whether in ecstatic 
prayer, praise, thanksgiving, or other- 
wise, to Him who had given the gift. 

29. IIpofrat 8 «.t.A.] ‘ Azd let the 
prophets speak, two or three ;’ the 6 
carrying on the directions to a new 
(‘novum quid accedit,’ Hermann) but 
connected class,—the mpopjta. The 
direction is not so precise as in ver. 
27, Kata do) Td) TAcioToy Tpeis. That, 


282 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. XIV. 29-31. 


29 TIpophntar dé dvo 1%) Tpeis NarelTwoay, Kai of Gro SiaKpi- 


veTWOaD * 


30 gay 6€ GAM atroKadupOn KaPnuévw, 6 TpHTOS 


/ 31 60 @ \ (cle (v4 ie if ivf 4 
olyaTo. vvacle yap Kal €va TrayvTEs TPOMNTEVELY, Wa TrAVTES 
Y ? 


however, it was to be, as in the case of 
those speaking with tongues, ava pépos, 
seems clear from the following verse: 
comp. Bengel. kal ot d&Ador 
Staxpivérwoav] ‘and let the others dis- 
cern :’ the other prophets, present but 
not speaking, were to exercise the gift 
of didkpiois myvevudtwy (ch. xii. 10; comp. 
Heb. v. 14) and test the words spoken 
(‘dijudicent,’ Vulg., Syr.; ‘examine,’ 
Arm.), whether they really came forth 
from the Spirit, or were only the 
imaginings of the speaker’s heart. 
What might seem a very different di- 
rection is given in Zhe Teaching of the 
Apostles, ch. 11, tavtTa mpophtny Aa- 
AodyTa ev mvebuatt ov TeipdoeTe ovdEe 
diaxpivetre,— but the circumstances are 
different, and the spiritual credentials 
of the mpopftns are tacitly assumed to 
have been known and recognized. It 
must clearly follow from this verse 
that mpopnreta and Sidkpiois mvevudtor 
were very closely united. The prophets 
would seem to have had the gift of 
discerning, though not necessarily ex- 
clusively. On the nature of the gift, 
see notes on ch. xii. Io. 

30. éabv 8 GAAw «.7.A.] ‘but if a 
revelation should be made to another 
sitting by ;’ further direction in the 
case of a spiritual communication sud- 
denly made to one of the &AAo mpop7- 
Tat sitting by as listeners, the tertiary 
predicate xa@nuévw (Donalds. Gr. § 489 
sq.) simply marking the &AAos as, at the 
time, a listener, and not a speaker. 
The rule of the early Church, following 
that of the synagogue (comp. Luke 
iv. 16 sq.), appears to have been that 
the reader or preacher should stand, 
and his hearers sit: comp. Justin Mar- 
tyr, Aol. 11. p. 98 D, aviotdueba Kowp 


mdavres Kal evxas méumouev. Prayer, it 
may be observed, both on the Lord’s 
Day and during the whole period be- 
tween Easter and Pentecost, was 
offered in a standing posture, in mem- 
ory of the Lord’s resurrection; see 
Bingham, Chr. Antigq. xiii. 8. 3. 

© Tpwros oLyaTw] ‘let the first remain 
silent ;’ scil. the one who was speaking 
prior to the dwoxdAvyis. There is some 
little doubt whether this ovydtw (ovyn- 
odrw would have settled the question) 
implies that the first speaker should 
stop at once, and give place to the 
other, or finish his discourse and then 
remain silent. The latter seems more 
natural. Some token, probably, would 
be given, by motion or gesture, that an 
amordAvyis had been vouchsafed to 
another of the mpodjta; this would be 
a sign to the speaker to close his ad- 
dress, and to let the newly-illumined 
succeed to him. The speaker with 
tongues was not to speak publicly at all 
if there was no interpreter (ver. 28); 
the prophet was permitted to speak, 
but was to prepare to pass into silence, 
when another had a revelation vouch- 
safed to him: comp. Chrys. 27 Zoc. 

31. Sivacbe yap K.T.A.] ‘For ye can 
(thus) all prophesy, one by one ;’ eluci- 
datory confirmation of the preceding 
direction, the dvvac@e having the prin- 
cipal, and mdvres the secondary, empha- 
sis : by one of the mpop7jra thus giving 
place to another, at the proper time, 
there would be the possibility of all 
exercising their xdpioua in orderly suc- 
cession,— not, of course, in one and 
the same ravfyupis, but in it and others 
that might succeed it. The ka@ éva 
does not here coalesce with adyres, it 
the sense of ‘ad unum omnes’ (De 


Cuap. XIV. 31, 32: 


TY CORINTHIANS: 


283 


pavOavecw Kal TavTes Tapakad@vTaly ™ Kal TvEevWaTa TpO- 


dntav mpopyntats vrotaccetas* * ov yap éoTW aKaTacTacias 


Wette,—a meaning which would ap- 
parently require the presence of -yevé- 
Mevot; see examples in Viger, de /diot. 
IX. 5. 7), but simply specifies the man- 
ner, in accordance with the ordinary 
distributive use of the preposition, 
‘singulatim’ (Bengel), in which what 
the Apostle specifies would come 
true; so Vulg., Syr., Copt., Arm. It 
thus corresponds with the kara dvo in 
verse 27; see notes zz Joc. The objec- 
tion of Hofmann, that the person of 
divacGe precludes its being applied 
more particularly to the prophets does 
notseem valid. The Apostle addresses 
all, ver. 26, implying, however, in the 
very verse, that he is also addressing 
them distributively. (va mavres 
pavOaveow «.T.r.] ‘272 order that all 
may learn and all may be comforted:’ 
purpose of the successive utterances, 
—that all the hearers might have the 
better opportunity of hearing, in the 
case of some of these speakers, words 
that might teach and bear mapdxAnow 
(ver. 3). The verb mapakadcto@a prob- 
ably here includes the mapayv@iav as 
well as the mapdkAnow of ver. 3 
(‘consolationem accipiant,’ Syr., Copt., 
Arm.), and is an expansion, on the 
practical side, of the foregoing pavéd- 
ve; but in this verb it is often diffi- 
cult to decide which of its two mean- 
ings ‘exhort’ and ‘comfort’ is to be 
preferred ; the context being frequently 
the only guide: see notes oz 1 Thess. 
i wl 

32. Kal mvedpata mpopyntav] ‘and 
the spirits of the prophets:’ further 
ground for the direction given in ver. 
30,— the subordination to the will of 
the prophet of the spiritual movements 
of his own soul; as és avrots [rpopntas] 
bv mote pmey ovyav, wore S& Aéyew, 
Severian (Cramer, Caz.) There is a 


considerable difference of opinion as 
to the precise meaning of the word 
mvevuata in this verse. The choice 
seems to lie between (a) the human 
mvevuara as influenced and filled by 
the Holy Spirit, Meyer, al., and (4) the 
movements and manifestations of that 
blessed Spirit, as in ch. xii. 10. Both 
interpretations practically lead to the 
same general meaning; of the two, 
however, (4), which is the view of 
Chrys. (mvedua evrat0a tiv évépyemy 
Aéye:), Theod. (ra xapicuata), Severian, 
Theoph., al., is to be preferred as most 
in harmony with the meaning in what 
may be deemed the primary and regu- 
lative passage, ch. xii. Io. 

Tmpopytats bmrotdaccera] ‘are subject 
to the prophets ;” are in subordination 
to them in whom they are manifested 
and operative, the present tense mark- 
ing what regularly and normally takes 
place; see Winer, Gr. § 40. 2, and 
notes oz Phil. iv. 7. Itcanscarcely be 
doubted that the mpopfrat in this 
portion of the verse are identical with 
the mpopjta in the former part, the 
substantive being repeated, rather than 
a pronoun used, to give a rhetorical 
force to the declaration, ‘the mpopytay 
and mpopntas standing in studied juxta- 
position. It has been thought, how- 
ever (Theod., al.), that what is here 
referred to is not the self-control in- 
culcated by the ovydtw (ver. 30), but 
the fact of the one prophet giving way 
to another, on which assumption the 
mpopntav and mpopjrats would refer to 
different persons,— the yielded-to and 
the yielder. This is grammatically 
possible, but logically improbable; the 
fact of such regular and customary 
yielding not really supplying any true 
reason for the direction to exercise 
self-control involved in the: orydro. 


284 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


CuaP. XIV. 32-34 


0 Qeds adra eipnuns, as év racais Tals Exxdnoias TOV wyiwv. 


Women are to be silent 
in Church assemblies. 


34 Ai yuvaines ev Tats éxkAnoiais avyatwoay’ 


34. yuvaikes] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev. Westc. and Hort, on clearly 


preponderating authority: Rec. adds suav. 


The same edd. adopt émirpérera 


on very greatly, and troraccée6woay on clearly, preponderating authority: Rec., 


émrérparra: and brordccec bas. 


The articles are throughout omitted, as 
the statement is made in its most 
general form, and with a kind of 
epigrammatic terseness; comp. Kiih- 
ner, Gr. § 462. h, i, Donalds. Gr. § 
394: 4. 

33- 0b yap éoriv dkatracractas K.T.A.] 
‘for God is not (a God) of confusion, 
but of peace ;’ confirmatory of ver. 32, 
and resting upon a well-known prin- 
ciple of the divine government: the 
nature of God is antithetical to d«ara- 
otacia, God being essentially, to use the 
words of Theodoret, rijs eiphyns 6 
mpttavis, comp. Rom. xv. 33, xvi. 20, 
Phil. iv. 9, 1 Thess. v. 23; peace is the 
moral element in which the Christian 
has received his «Ajous, ch. vii. 15. 
The term ékatacracia occurs in Luke 
xxi. 9, where it is associated with 
méAeuos, 2 Cor. xii. 20, where it fol- 
lows y0upioueds and puciwois, and James 
ili. 16, where it is put on a level with 
Gijdos and épideia. In 2 Cor. vi. 5 the 
reference is apparently to the ‘tumults’ 
raised against the Apostle at Ephesus 
(Acts xix. 29) and elsewhere. The 
rendering of Vulg. (‘diss. ‘o’), Copt. 
(‘divisio’) is too weak : the true mean- 
ing is ‘tumultus,’ as Syr., Aith., or 
‘perturbatio,’ Arm. The Apostle de- 
signedly uses a strong word; there was 
at this time serious ovyxvo1s and tapaxh 
within the Corinthian Church. 
as év macats «.7.A.] ‘as in all the 
Churches of the saints:’ appended 
statement, designed tacitly to contrast 
the examples set by all other Christian 
Churches in regard of reverence and 
order; aisxtvOnre ody iets mapa mdoas 


Tas eKkKAnoias moAdrTevduevoi, Theoph. 
There is considerable difference of 
opinion as to the connection of this 
clause. JLachm., Tisch., Meyer, al., 
prefix it to the passage that follows: 
Westc. and Hort attach it to mates 
pavOdvwow Kal mavtes TapakuAG@vTa, 
placing in a parenthesis kal mvedu.— 
eipnvns. To both these arrangements, 
however, there seem valid objections; 
(a) to the first, as involving a general 
reference to the practice of all other 
Churches, when to some extent Cor- 
inth was confessedly an exception (ch. 
xi. 3), and as prominently laying a 
greater weight on usage than the 
Apostle, in this Epistle, would have 
been likely to use: (4) to the second 
arrangement, as, in a somewhat simple 
passage, necessitating a suspended 
thought, which really only weakens the 
force of the strong final (iva) sentence 
with which it would thus be associated. 
We, therefore, with the early exposi- 
tors, and apparently all the Vv., con- 
nect the clause with what precedes, 
and regard it as supplying a sort of 
concluding semi-argument, somewhat 
similar to the ovdé ai éxxAnola tov 
@cod of ch. xi. 16. 


34-36. Directions with reference -to 
women. 34. at yuvatkes k.7.A.] 
‘Let the women keep silence in the 
Churches ;’ scil. in the larger and pub- 
lic assemblies of the Church, which 
alone are under consideration in this 
chapter: comp. verses 4, 5, I2, 16, 19, 
23, 26, and see notes on ch. xi. 5. It 
is probable that the Apostle had here 


CuHap. XIV. 35, 36. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


285 


n Lal b) e / \ 
ov yap emitpémetat avtais Nadeiv, GAA VToTaccécOwaay, Kaas 


Vie € / Ig 
KQl O vomos NEYEL. 


5 ef O€ Te wabeiv OédXovaw, ev oikw Tovs idious 


y+ > / ’ XN / A) \ tal > 
avdpas émepwratwoay* aioypov yap é€oTL yuvaikl rarely év 


exkKAnola. 
4 
Upas MOvOUS KATHVTNGED ; 


3°H ad vuav 6 Aoyos ToD Ocod é&HdOev, 7 els 


35- ‘yuvairl Aadreiv ev éexxAnola] So, as to yuvainl, and as to the order of the 
words, Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly preponderating 
authority: Rec., yuvaitly Aadety ev exxaAnala Aare. 


especially in his thoughts the office of 
teaching in public: see 1 Tim. ii. 12, 
Siddonew 5é yuvaikd ovK emtpérw. This 
rule was carefully maintained in the 
early Church: see Const. Afost. 111 6, 
and Conc. Carthag. Iv. 99. Among 
the Jews for a woman to read publicly 
the law involved a dishonor to the 
Synagogue: see Lightfoot, Hor. ix 
A. lt. Schoettgen, Hor. p. 658. 

KaQds Kal 6 vopos Aéye] ‘as the law 
also says ;’ viz. in the primal declara- 
tion, Gen. iii. 16, ‘thy desire shall be 
to thy husband, and he shall rule over 
thee.’ On this more extended refer- 
ence of 6 vdéues, see notes on ver. 21. 
On the form ka@ds, see notes oz Gal. 
iii. 6. 

35. eb S€ re padety BéXovew] ‘ And 
if they wish to learn anything ;’ further 
direction, the 5¢ appending slightly 
fresh matter, viz. that they were to 
put their questions éy ofem, not & 
éxxAnoig. The reading is not perfectly 
certain: Westc. and Hort adopt pavéd- 
vetv, but on external authority which 
does not seem diplomatically sufficient, 
and and with internal evidence ap- 
parently pointing the other way; the 
change from the aorist to the present 
being more likely, owing to the asso- 
ciated presents, than the converse. 
The distinction between the present 
infinitive and the aorist infinitive after 
6€Aw and similar verbs would seem to 
be this: when attention is to be di- 
rected to the procedure of the action 


specified by the verb, the present is 
commonly used; when simply to the 
action specified by the verb, the aorist 
is used; see Winer, Gr.§ 44. 7. C. 
Kiihner, Gr. § 389, rem. 8, and comp. 
Donalds. Gr. § 427. d. 

aioxpov yap «.7.d.] ‘for if is a shame 
for a woman to speak in (the) Church ;? 
strongly-worded confirmation of the 
preceding direction, and preparing for 
the almost indignant question which 
follows. On the term éyv exxAnoia, see 
notes on ch. xi. 18. 

36. "H ad” tov x.t.d.] ‘Or was it 
Srom you that the word of God went 
Sorth ? or came it unto you alone ?’ ‘If 
customs, otherwise so disgraceful, are 
to be maintained among you, one 
can only conclude that you are the 
primitive fountain of Church teach- 
ing and Church order, or the only 
depository of it;’ the general term, 6 
Adyos tod Ocod including alike thy &Ah- 
Oetav kal Toy Kavdéva Toy éxKAno.acTiKdD, 
Origen. There is some little doubt 
whether this verse is to be connected 
with ver. 35, (Zisch., Rev., Westc. and 
ffort), or with what follows (DeWette, 
Alf.). On the one hand, it might be 
thought that the strong tone of the 
verse could hardly have been called 
out by the usage just specified: 
on the other hand, dratia of this 
kind had a far graver import than 
might appear on the surface (consider 
ch. xi. 7 sqq.), and, as we well know, 
expanded afterwards into very grave 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


986 Cuap. XIV. 36-38 


This is the Lord’s 
command. 


eTruywwacKéTo & ypadw tyiv, dtr Kupiov éativ évtorAj: * et 5é 


87 Ei tus Soxed mpopyrns elvar 4 mvevpatiKéds, 


TLS GYVOEL, ayvoEtTaL. 


37- Kuplov] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly 
preponderating authority: Rec., Tod Kuplov. éorly évroAh|] So Lachm., 
Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on greatly preponderating authority as to éotiv, 
and on clearly preponderating authority as to évroan: Rec., eiolv évroaAal, with 
internal evidence also against it; Z7sch., éoriv only, but on clearly insufficient 


authority. 


38. ayvoe?trat] So Lachm., Tisch., Westc. and Hort, (with margin), on slightly 


evils in the early Church, and might 
thus rightly be put in antithesis, as 
it were, with Church usage everywhere 
else (comp. ch. xi. 16) as is in effect 
done in this verse: 1d aicxpby Tov 
mpdrywatros edeike, Tas Aowwas exKAnolas 
eis pecov TéOeikev, Chrys. We adopt, 
then, with some confidence, the con- 
nection with what precedes. So ap- 
parently Copt., Aith., and, as far as 
can be inferred, the remaining Versions 
and the early expositors. eis 
Spas pdvovs] ‘z272¢0 you,’ ‘7x vos solos,’ 
Vulg., the idea of reaching to and en- 
tering as it were into them, being thus 
more fully implied by the preposition eis 
(with persons) than if the less distinc- 
tive mpés had been used; see Winer, 
Gr. § 49. a. a, and on the distinction 
between eis and mpés, notes oz Philem. 5. 


37, 38. Concluding exhortations. 

37. Hi ris Soxet «.7.d.] ‘Zf any man 
thinketh himself to be a prophet ;’ not 
‘videtur,’ Vulg., ‘existimatur,’ Arm., 
Theoph., but ‘putat,’ Syr., Copt., Aith. 
(in effect), al, —the context seeming 
clearly to show that the reference here 
is subjective, and points, not to what 
the tis may be in the eyes of others, 
but what he deems himself to be: see 
notes on ch. iii. 18. q Tvevpate- 
Kés] ‘or spiritual, scil. ‘one endowed 
with any spiritual gift,’ the context de- 
termining the shade of meaning to be 
ascribed in each case to the somewhat 


inclusive epithet. Hofmann objects 
to this sort of generic rendering of 
mvevuaTikds, aS not in harmony with 
the common use of the disjunctive 4%, 
but see Kiihner, Gv. § 540. 1, where this 
use of the particle is clearly substan- 
tiated; see also Baumlein, Park. p. 
126. émiywackéta & ypadw 
kK.t..] ‘let him take knowledge of the 
things that I write to you, that it is the 
Lord’s commandment ;’ the compound 
emywe@oKev having its usual fuller 
meaning (see notes on ch. xiii. 12), 
though here somewhat diluted by the 
attracted form which the sentence has 
assumed, the meaning being in effect, 
‘judicet atque agnoscat, ea, que scribo 
vobis, esse preecepta Christi Domini,’ 
Est. On the very intelligible attrac- 
tion, according to which the & ypdagw' 
buiv, which logically belongs to the 
objective or expository member of the 
sentence, is grammatically associated 
with the first member, see Winer, Gr. 
§ 66. 5.a, and on the various uses of 
emvyivwonew, Cremer, Worterd. s.v. p. 
158 sq. The Kuplov, as its position in- 
dicates, is emphatic. The Apostle 
here speaks with the full spiritual 
knowledge that the rules given in this 
chapter are no mere expressions of his 
own judgment, but are verily a collec- 
tive évtoAy of the personal Lord, speak- 
ing as it were by His Apostle as His 
interpreter: comp. Hofmann 27 doc. 

38. el SE Tis ayvoet] ‘but if anyone 


Cuap. XIV. 38-40. I 


Desire prophesying and 
observe order, 


CORINTHIANS. 


287 


9 "Date, adehpot wou, %prodte TO mpodr- 


Tevelv, Kal TO NarEiY pn KwWAUETE Yroooas. * TavTa 5é ebay. 


fy , 
poves Kal Kata Takww yivécbo. 


preponderating authority: Rec., Treg. (with margin), Rev. (with margin), &yvo- 
e(rw, — a change due perhaps to not understanding the meaning of ayvoeira. 
39. adeApoi wov] So [Lachm.], Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc.and Hort, on clearly 


preponderating authority: Rec. omits pov. 


KH KwAVETE yAdooaus] So, in 


regard of order, Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly pre- 
ponderating authority: Rec., yAdooats wh KwAvere. 
40. mdvta 5¢] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc.and Hort, on very greatly 


preponderating authority: “ec. omits 5é. 


knows not, scil. what & ypdow syiv 
really are. The idea of wilful igno- 
rance is not necessarily involved in 
this verb: it may be latent (‘mavult 
ignorare,’ Estius), but what is expressed 
is simply, ‘ignorat,’ Vulg., or, as cor- 
rected by Beza, ‘ignarus est,’ (‘ignorans 
est,’ Copt.), is ignorant of the true char- 
acter and authority of these commands, 
whether from indifference or otherwise. 
Gyvoeira] ‘he 7s not known ;’ scil. 
‘vicissim ignorabitur [ignoratur] a 
Domino,’ Estius: he is one of those 
whom the Lord knows not (contrast 
John x. 14, 2 Tim. ii. 19), and to whom 
hereafter, if they persevere in their 
&yvoia, the dread ov« oida studs (Matt. 
xxv. 12) will be pronounced, when the 
Lord comes. If the reading dyvocitw 
be adopted, the meaning will be ‘let 
him remain in his ignorance,’ the im- 
perative being permissive (see ch. vii. 
15, and notes zz /oc.), and the general 
sentiment, that all hope of further 
successful instruction must be re- 
nounced : see Winer, Gr. § 43. I. 


39, 40. Summary of the whole chap- 
ter. 39. “orre] ‘So then, Conse- 
quently :’ introductory of the conclud- 
ing exhortations (‘ex diverticulo redit 
ad prius dicta,’ Grot.), and directing at- 
tention to the whole preceding counsels 
from which they naturally flow, and on 
which they are based; comp. ch. xi. 


33, and on the meaning of this particle 
(‘itaque,’ Vulg.), notes on ver. 22. 
{nrobre 1d mpodyredew k.7.d.] ‘earnestly 
desire to prophesy, and hinder not the 
speaking with tongues:’ comprehen- 
sively expressed summary of the exact 
tenor of the exhortation (in reference 
to these two spiritual gifts) as directly 
given, and as indirectly transpiring 
throughout the chapter. In all that 
was said in reference to Td mpopytever, 
from verse I onward, the tenor is 
(ndodre : equally also is it, wh xwAvere. 
No hinderance is offered to this latter 
gift; nay, when it is manifested, the 
speaker is bidden to pray for the power 
of making his utterances profitable to 
others (ver. 13) ; when confusion might 
ensue (ver. 27) directions are given to 
obviate it. 

40. mavta S& Kt.A.] ‘But let all 
things be done, be carried on (ywéo0w, 
pres.), decently and in order ;’ summary 
on the practical side, introduced by 
the connective, yet slightly antithetical, 
dé (‘novum quid accedit,’ Hermann), 
of the real purpose which guided and 
animated all the foregoing directions; 
— edification (compare ver. 5, 12, 26), 
of which the necessary basis was 7d ev- 
oxnuov (ch. vii. 35), and rdéis. 
eboxnpdvas] ‘decently, decorously ;’ 
see Rom. xiii. 13, 1 Thess. iv. 12. The 
word involves the idea, not merely of 
contrast to ardxtws, but of decorus and 


288 


The gospel which I 
preached was, in ac- 
cordance with facts. 
Christ’s resurrection. 


riGORIN TPH A Nts: 


CHART AV oF, 2. 


XV. Ivapifo 5€ ipiv, aderdoi, Td evay- 
yéduov 0 edyyyehucauny dpiv, 6 Kai Trap- 


edaBete, ev © Kai éotnKate, dv 0b Kal cwlerOe, Tin Koyo 


seemly deportment. It is the sort of 
ethical enhancement of the more me- 
chanical kara tdi which follows: see 
notes 02 1 Thess. /.c. The short but 
telling treatise of Hammond, Grounds 
of Uniformity Vindicated (Lond. 1657), 
is founded on this text. 


VII. THE RESURRECTION OF THE 
DEAD (ch. xv.). 


XV. 1-11. Zhe historical fact of 
Christ's resurrection the substance of the 
Apostle’s preaching. 

1. yuwplto St bpiv] ‘Mow 7 make 
known unto you ;’ the 6€ indicating the 
transition (notes oz Gal.i. 11), and the 
yvwpitw (‘notum facio,’ Syr., Vulg.; 
‘manifesto,’ Arm.; not ‘annuncio,’ 
Copt.,—still less avapuiuyhoxw, Theod., 
comp. Chrys.), with some tinge of re- 
proach, marking that the Apostle was 
forced, as it were, de ovo to make 
known the tenor and import of the 
gospel (‘doctrinam de Christo salva- 
tore hominum,’ Estius) which he had 
preached among them (ch. ii. 2), of 
which Jesus and the resurrection (Acts 
ii. 33, xvii. 18, al.) ever formed the 
primary doctrines (comp. ver. 3), and 
the true tenor and substance: comp. 
John xvii. 26, Rom. ix. 22. The for- 
mula is the prelude tothe orderly and 
deliberate statement which follows; 
comp. 2 Cor. viii. 1, and Gal. i. 11, 
where see notes 272 loc. 6 Kal 
maperaBere K.t.A.] ‘which also ye re- 
ceived, in which also ye stand ;’ each 
kat marking climactically that which, 
on their side, was associated with, and 
resulted from, the preaching: des mas 
avro’s Kade? pdprupas Tay eipnucvwr, 
Chrys. First, beside_merely hedring 
with the outward ear, they received 


(Gal. i. 9, Phil. iv. 9, Col. ii. 6, 1 Thess. 
ii. 13); then, further, they so received 
that they attained init a firm standing- 
ground (Rom. v. 2; comp. xi. 20, 2 
Cor. i. 24), and further still, by means 
of it, were on the e pathway c of salvation. 
On the ascensive kal, of which this 
passage forms a good illustration, see 
notes oz Phil. iv. 12. This and the 
three following verses form the text of 
the fourteenth of the Catechetical 
Lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem, p. 165 
sq. (Oxf. 1845). 

2. 8 od Kal odlere] ‘by which 
also ye are being saved, are placed 
among the ow(duevo (ch. i. 18),— 
not merely as éAmi(ovres am avtod 
cwrTnpias tuxeiv, Theodorus), but as 
actually zz the way that leads to salva- 
tion, and placed there by the gospel- 
call, salvation having begun _when 
Christ was believed in; comp. Rom. 
viii. 24, Eph. ii. 8 : ‘salus Christianorum 
incipit in hac vita, perficitur in futuro,’ 
Estius. The very meaning, however, 
of the verb involves a reference to the 


future, so that we may rightly say that 
past, present, and future are ‘each 





Tespectively referred to in the mape- 


AaBere, éorhxare, and od(eobe, of this 
and the two foregoing clauses. 

rive Adyw ebnyyeiodpny iptv] ‘if you 
hold fast, with what word 1 preached it 
unto you:’ scil. with what form of 
words, and substance of teaching, — 
aot qui-ratione;”Vule, bat "quenam 
sermone,’ Syr. (comp. Ath. ‘quidnam 
dixi vobis’), the mapéwxa of the next 
verse Clearly pointing more to the what 
than the ow of the teaching. The 
connection of this clause is by no 
means easy to decide upon. We may 
connect it (z) immediately with the 


CuaP. XV. 2, 3. 


mn CORINTHIANS. 


289 


a \ A 
eunyyediodunv vuiy eb KaTéyeTE, EKTOS EL Lt) ELK ETLTTEVOATE 


S qrapcdwxa yap vpiv év mpwrou, 6 Kai TapéraBov, dte Xpiotos 


foregoing clause 8? 06 xa) ob(er0e, and 
regard it as specifying the condition 
under which the hopeful words are 
spoken; or (4) it may be joined, by a 
very common principle of attraction 
(comp. Winer, Gr. § 66. 4), to the rd 
evayy-d einyy. tui, the relatival clauses 
being regarded as in effect in a paren- 
thesis: so apparently ZLachm., Weste. 
and Hort, and clearly Rev. This latter 
construction is at first sight plausible, 
but the logical objection seems fatal, 
viz. that the condition ef naréxere can- 
not be very intelligibly associated with 
the yvwpl(w buiv «.7.A.. which is simply 
a statement of what the Apostle then 
was doing, wholly independent of any 
spiritual attitude on the part of the 
Corinthians. We therefore adopt (a), 
and regard the inversion of the two 
members of the conditional clause as 
due to the desire to keep in prominence 
the tit Adyw «.7T.A., on which the em- 
phasis obviously rests, the tim taking 
the place of the relative to enhance 
this emphasis: see Winer, Gr. § 25.1. 
note, Buttm. V.7. Gr. p. 216. Itwas 
on holding firmly the substance of the 
Apostle’s teaching that progress _in 
salvation depended. For examples of 
somewhat similar inversions, see Wi- 
ner, Gr. § 61. 3. éxrds ei ph 
«.7.d.] ‘except it be that you believed in 
vain ;’ an assumption not contem- 
plated as likely to have been verified, 
but still specified by way of gently 
implied warning: comp. Chrys. 7 /oc., 
who, however, emphasizes the warning 
more than the context seems to re- 
quire ; so too Severian (Cramer, Caz.). 
The clause is thus dependent, not on 
the preceding « karéxere (Theoph., 
CGé£cum., al.), as one conditional clause 
would then have another dependent 
on it—a manifest awkwardness — but 


37 


on the whole preceding portion of the 
verse, to which it forms a sort of cau- 
tionary conclusion. On the pleonastic 
extTds ef wh, see notes on ch. xiv. 5, and 
on the reference of the aor. émovet- 
gate to the period when the Gospel 
was first received by them, notes on 
ch. ili. 5; comp. Rom. xiii. 11. The 
adverb eixj (on the orthography, see 
Winer, Gr. § 5. 4. c) does not refer to 
the objective nullity (Alf.) of the faith 
professed (comp. ver. 11), as this con- 
ception has not yet been hinted at, but 
to the fruitless manner (00 BeBaiws, 
Origen) in which it had been embraced: 
comp. Gal. iii. 4, iv. 11, and, on the 
possible derivation of the word, notes 
on Col. ii. 18. There seems no suf- 
ficient reason for pressing here the more 
usual classical meaning ‘sine justa 
causa,’ ‘temere’ (comp. Rom. xiii. 11, 
and perhaps Col. ii. 18): the mean- 
ing ‘frustra’ (Hesych. udrnv) is here 
rightly maintained by Vulg., Syr., 
fEth., Arm.; so Grimm, Zex. s. v., and 
nearly all modern interpreters. 

3. TapéSoxa yap K.T.rA.] ‘Hor J de- 
livered unto you first of all:’ explana- 
tory comment on the trim Adyw xk.T.A., 
the yép having here the mixed explan- 
atory and argumentative force which 
is often to be recognized in this par- 
ticle: see Kiihner, Gr. § 544. 1, and 
notes oz Gal.iv. 2. Hofmann regards 
the particle as giving the reason for 
the Apostle’s speaking with the reser- 
vation specified in the preceding verse: 
the reasoning, however, does not thus 
seem perspicuous; whereas an expla- 
nation of the language just used, and 
of the contents of the preaching is clear 
and_natural. The év mpéros (‘inpri- 
mis,’ Vulg., Goth.) does not here refer 
to time (€& apxjs, ov viv, Chrys.), but, 
as the context clearly implies, to im- 


290 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. XV. 3-4. 


BJ £0. e \ fal e lal € an \ \ , 4 ae 
aréOavev oTrép TOV auapTiOV nuaV KaTa Tas ypadds, 4 Kal Ort 
eradn, Kal OTe eynyeptar TH Huépa TH Tpitn Kata Tas ypadas, 


4. TH Huepa tH tTplrn] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on 
very clearly preponderating authority: Rec., TH tpltn juépa. 


portance ; as péeya dv 7d mep) THis dvaord- 
cews Sdéyua, ev mpdtos aitd mwapedwxa, 
Theoph. 5 Kal mapéhaPov] 
‘which I also received ;’ the correla- 
tive and ascensive kat marking that 
the Apostle had, like themselves, re- 
ceived the great truth. Whence he 
had received it is not stated. The 
Apostle might have received it by 
direct revelation (comp. Gal. i. 12), 
and from Christ Himself (eis roy 
Xpiordy avdyer, Chrys., Cyril, al.), but, 
in the absence of any definitive ex- 
pression (contrast ch. xi. 33), and in 
connection with the historical details 
which follow, seems here mainly to 
have in his thoughts sthe historical 
communication of the ever-blessed 
truth. St. Xprords aréOavev k.7.d.] 
‘that Christ died for our sins:’ sub- 
stance of the ’ kal mapéAaBov, intro- 
duced by the expository 871: comp. 
Donalds. Gr. § 584 sq. On the im- 
portant dogmatical expression értp tév 
Guaptiay (‘pro peccatis nostris abolen- 
dis,’ Bengel, va ekéAn Tod Kéopov Thy 
Guaptiavy, Cyril; comp. Heb. v. 1, x. 
12), comp. notes oz Gal. i. 4 (where 
the closely allied wepi is used), and on 
the probable meaning of brép jay in 
passages of this nature, notes oz Gal. 
iii. 13. The remark of Meyer is right 
and true, that the idea of the ‘satis- 
factio vicaria’ lies not in the mere 
preposition, but in the thing itself, and 
in the whole statement: consider Rom. 
v. 6, Eph. v. 2, al. KaTa TAs 
yeas] ‘ according to the Scriptures ;’ 
studiously appended, to mark that the 
events of the blessed history were long 
before foretold in prophecies which 
could not but have their sure accom- 


plishment: comp. I Pet. i. 10 sq., and 
for similar statements as to the close 
relation of the prophecy with the his- 
tory, Luke xxii. 37, xxiv. 25 sqq., John 
xx. 9, Acts viii. 32 sqq., XVil. 3, XXxvi. 
22 sqq. For illustrations of the state- 
mentsee Barrow (Ox the Creed), Serm. 
XXvil. Vol. v. p. 391 sqq. (Oxf. 1830). 
4. Kal Stu éynpyeprar «t.r.] ‘And 
that he has been raised on the third 
day ;’ the perfect being studiously 
adopted, here and elsewhere in this 
chapter, to mark the continuance of 
the blessed event (contrast Matt. 
xxviii. 6, 7, Mark xvi. 6, Luke xxiv. 
6, 34, al.) in its effects and conse 
quences. The tense indicates ‘ac- 
tionem plane preteritam, que aut nunc 
ipsum seu modo finita est, aut fer 
effectus suos durat, Poppo, Progr. de 
emend. Matth. Gr. p.6: comp. 2 Tim. 
ii. 8, and, in regard of the general 
meaning of the tense, notes on ch. xiii. 
11. «The tH jucp2z tH Tpitn seems also 
used to specify with exactness and em- 
phasis the time, and its coincidence 
with the foreshadowings of prophecy 
(comp. Matt. xii. 40), and our Lord’s 
own declarations; see Mark x. 34,. 
Luke xviii. 33, John. ii. 19, 21. Kata 
Tas ypadds thus belongs, as indeed the 
repetition of the é7: also clearly in- 
dicates, only to this second clause; 
comp. Chrys. 2 doc. The burial was 
an incident of great evidential impor- 
tance, but it did not need the pro- 
phetic corroboration (Psalm xvi. 10; 
comp. Acts ii. 24, xiii. 34) which the 
simple mention of the great cardinal 
truth (87: éyhyepra:) seemed at once, 
almost spontaneously, to cail forth; 
comp. Luke xxiv. 46, John xx. 9: 





Cap. XV. 5, 6. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 291 


5xal Ore P0n Kydd, cita trois dHdexa+ ° érevta WhO eTravw 


lal & € , i 
mevtakocios adedpois éebarrak, €E Mv ol mreloves pévovow Ews 


6. waefoves] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Westc. and Hort, on greatly prepon- 


derating authority: Rec. mAclous. 


twes 5€] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., 


Westc. and /fort, on very clearly preponderating authority: Rec. adds kal. 


‘urgendum est pondus de resurrectione,’ 
Bengel. 

5. Stu dyn Knoa] ‘ that he appeared 
to Cephas:’ see Luke xxiv. 34. The 
Apostle specifies this appearance rather 
than the earlier ones of which he no 
doubt was fully informed, as he de- 
sired to adduce authority which no one 
could justly call in question, viz. first 
that of St. Peter (one of the ariAa, 
Gal. ii. 9, and even more, Matt. xvi. 17) 
who, of men, apparently first beheld 
the risen Lord (afidxpewy cis uaptuplay, 
Theod.); and next, that of the whole 
Apostolic company. elra, Tots 
SuS8exa] ‘then to the twelve, As we 
know, it was really at first only to ten 
of the whole number (John xx. 19, 24; 
comp. Luke xxiv. 36), and, a week 
afterwards, to eleven (John xx. 26): 
but the term had already become of- 
fical, and referred to the collective body 
rather than to the precise number of 
which the body, at the time referred 
to, actually consisted. To suppose 
that the term implies that our Lord 
appeared also to St. Matthew (Chrys., 
al.), is clearly to over-press a very 
natural form of expression. Most ex- 
positors rightly call attention to the 
repetition of the temporal adverbs, and 
to the éoxatov mdyrwy (ver. 8), as im- 
plying that the Apostle is here gene- 
rally following a chronological order: 
see contra Wieseler, Chron. Synops. p. 
420 sq., who does not appear to have 
assigned to this passage the importance, 
considered chronologically, that is due 
to it. 

6. treara dn k.7.d.] ‘after that He 
appeared to above five hundred brethren 


at once:’ change of structure, intro- 


duced by the slightly more accentuated 
éreita [ém elra, Hartung, Part. Vol. 
I. p. 302] and carrying on the narrative 
without necessarily implying that the 
facts mentioned had been specified to 
the Corinthians, but certainly without 
implying anything to the contrary. 
Whenever the Apostle preached to his 
converts such a doctrine as the resur- 
rection of our Lord, common sense 
says that he would have laid before 
them all the evidence. On the use of 
(‘deinde,’ Vulg.; ‘alsdann,’ 
Ewald), which denotes the speedy fol- 
lowing upon what had been stated of the 
event specified, see Bium. Partzh. p. 113, 
and notes oz I Thess. iv. 17. On the 
structure of émdvw (‘plus quam,’ Vulg. : 
certainly not &yw Kal Srép Kedadrs, 
Chrys.) with cardinal numbers, and the 
suspension of its usual genitival gov- 
ernment, the particle being purely 
adverbial, see Winer, Gr. § 37. 5, and 
on the later form édmat (not here 
‘once for all,’ Rom. vi. 10, Heb. vii. 27, 
ix. I2, x. 10, but, as the sense obviously 
requires, ‘simul,’ Vulg., Clar., Copt.; 
‘una,’ Syr.: ‘suns,’ Goth.), and the 
connection of adverb and preposition, 
Winer, Gr. § 50. 7. rem. 1, Kiihner, 
Gr. § 446. The occasion here referred 
to cannot positively be identified with 
that mentioned in Matt. xxviii. 16, as 
those who went to the appointed place 
are specified as of évSexa, but, from a 
consideration of all the circumstances, 
such an identification may at least be 
deemed highly probable; see Zife of 
our Lord, Lect. VIII. p. 410. 

pévovcty ews dipti] ‘remain until now,! 


fret a 


292° 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


CuHap. XV. 68. 


apt, Twes b€ éxoiunOnaav: 7 erecta WhOn “LaxwBo, ita Tots 


amootonas Tacw: Séryatoyv Sé TavTMY WaOTEPEL TS EKTP@MATL 


here on earth: comp. Phil. i. 25, John 
xxi. 22. The Apostle is careful to 
mention this to show the amount of 
testimony he had to rely on, and how 
easily it could be verified : dbvardv, myo, 
tov BovAduevoy map’ a’tav éxelywy TovTO 
padeiv, Theod. tives 8 Exoupy- 
Onoav] ‘but some are fallen asleep ;’ 
appended and subordinated statement, 
to cover the probable circumstance 
that now, twenty-seven years after- 
wards, some would be no ionger alive; 
the d€ contrasting the twés with the of 
mAetoves, the comparatively few that can 
now bear no testimony on this earth, 
with the larger portion that can still be 
appealed to. Theat is rightly omitted: 
if it were genuine it would just idio- 
matically accentuate the éxounOncar, 
and have what may be called its de- 
scensive force : see notes on Phil. iv. 12. 
On the term komao@as in its reference 
to death, and the utterly precarious 
nature of the doctrinal deductions that 
have sometimes been drawn from it, 
see notes and references 0” 1 Thess. 
iv. 13. 

7. dy "IlaxdBw] ‘He appeared to 
James ;’ an appearance not mentioned 
in the Gospel narrative. The James 
here mentioned is regarded by the 
early expositors, and apparently rightly, 
as James, the brother of our Lord; see 
Gal. i. 19, and notes 77 Joc. Without 
entering further into the controverted 
question whether this Jacobus Frater 
was an Apostle in the full meaning of 
the word, and so to be identified with 
Jacebus A/phai (see notes on ch. ix. 5), 
it seems certainly exegetically reason- 
able to say that the addition of the 
word maow does seem to suggest that 
St. James was one of the number: see 
Hofmann zz oc. It may certainly be 
said that as the of dé5exna have been 


mentioned already, the assumption is 
not unreasonable that the of amdaroAr 
here mentioned may include the wic 
circle of the disciples: so Theand 
Chrys., al. It may be replied, how~ 
ever, that, in a passage of this kind, 
where the language is marked by a 
kind of documentary precision {comp. 
ver. 8), it is highly improbable that 
the word should be used in any but its 
usual and more restricted sense. Why 
may not this appzarance to St. James 
have taken place shortly before some 
appearance to the apostolic company 
of which we have no specific notice? 
Consider Acts i. 3, 4. Jerome refers 
to an appearance vouchsafed to James 
the Just, as mentioned in the ancient 
Gospel ‘ quod appellatur secundum He- 
bros ’ (de Vir. Lllustr. cap. 2), which 
may have rested on some early tradi- 
tion, or may have been based on this 
passage : comp. Hofmann, Zebex Jesu 
nach den Apocryphen, § 89, p. 393- 
elta tots dtroorddois Tac] ‘then Lo 
all the Apostles ;’ not with any par- 
ticular emphasis, ‘to the Apostles, 
every one of them,’ the semi-pronom- 
inal was here simply occupying one of 
its two normal positions (rots am. raow, 
or mao. Tois &r.) when the whole is 
specified as such, and assuming the 
form of an additive definition. If the 
order had been tots maow amoorddots 
(not, however, a very usual order in 
the N.T.; see notes oz Gal. v. 14), 
then the whole body would have been 
regarded as in latent distinction to its 
parts: see especially Kiihner, Gr. § 
465. 6. b, c, and comp. Kriiger, Sprachi. 
§ 50. 11. 7, 12, Winer, Gr. § 61. 2. 3. 

8. érXatov 8 mwévrwv] ‘and last of 
all ;’ comp. Mark xii. 22 (according 
to the best text), where the same com- 
bination occurs. In both passages it 


Se 


a 


CuaP. XV. 8, 9. 


@POn Kapol. 


r CORINTHIANS. 


298 


°K \ , ? e ee A > a 
yo yap Elfl O EAAYIGTOS TWVY ATTOTTFOAWV, OS 


ovK eiul ixavos KadelcOar amroaToNos, dioTe edimEa THY éxKAM- 


may be considered doubiful whether 
mdayvtwy is masculine or neuter. If the 
former, then the reference is to the 
améatodat (Meyer), or to all those men- 
tioned, ‘all of them,’ Syr., Copt., AZth. : 
if the latter, then éoxaTov mavtwy must 
be regarded as an adverbial expression 
like wdytwy uddAiora, al. On the whole, 
as the context relates entirely to per- 
sons, the masculine reference is to be 
preferred, and in its wider application, 
—all of those referred to (mdvTwy 
av9pérwv, Theod.), whether amdécrorc 
or no; ‘universi eorum, quibus visus 
est,’ Est. For examples of the adver- 
bial use of exarov, and its connection 
with a genitive (Deut. xxxi. 27, 29), see 
Steph. Zhesaur. s.v. Vol. Ill. p. 2113 
(ed. Hase). aomepel TO exTpd- 
pati] ‘as «nto the untimely-born one,’ 
‘tanquam abortivo,’ Vulg., Syr., Copt., 
*suasve ausvarpa [abjectioni],’ Goth. : 
the strong expression being used to 
denote the Apostle’s suddenly and ab- 


normally effected conversion as con-, 


trasted with the peaceful call and 
ripening apostolate of those with whom 
he proceeds to contrast himself. The 
article adds still further enhancement, 
‘the one who, contrasted with the rest, 
was pre-eminently an éktpwua.’ The 
word éxtpwua (extitpdcKw) is a later 
form, synonymous with the more 
classical &BAwua (Lobeck, Phryx. p. 
209), denoting the ‘untimely fruit’ of 
the womb, &uBAwéptdiov EuBpvoy, Theod., 
used apparently first in Aristotle (Gez. 
Anim. 1V. 5, kuhpat exminre: mapamAhowa 
Tois Kadoupévots extpduacw), and sub- 
sequently in later writers: see LXX 
Num. xii. 12, Job iii. 16, Eccl. vi. 3, 
the examples in Wetst. zz /oc., and the 
discussion of the word in Fritzsche, 
Dissert. I. p. 90 Sq. ; comp. also Suicer, 
Thesaur. s.v. Vol. I. p. 1073 sq. The 


strong expression is studiously softened 
by the @otmepe:, a form only occurring 
here in the N.T., but used in classical 
Greek from Aéschylus onward. 

Hh0n Kapol] ‘He appeared to me also.’ 
The Apostle uses the same form of 
expression, in reference to the appear- 
ance of the ascended Lord, as pre- 
viously used in reference to the ap- 
pearances prior to the Ascension. Christ 
thus vouchsafed to show Himself, even 
as He had been seen at, and prior to, 
that time, — corporaliter, atque oculis 
corporeis videndum,’ Estius: consider 
Article I1. 

g. "Hyd yap «.t.d.[ ‘For L am the 
least of the Aposties:’ confirmation of 
the strong expression used in the pre- 
ceding verse, the éy# having its full 
emphasis, ‘I, this €xrpwua.’ Chrysostom 
appears here to take amootéAwy in its 
wider sense, Tév HAAwy ardvtwv. This 
does not seem required by the con- 
text: it seems more probable that in 
such a passage as this the word would 
be used in its proper sense; comp. 
notes on ver. 7. ds ov cipl 
K.T.A.] ‘who am not meet to be called,’ 
almost ‘ seeing I am not, etc.,’ the és 
having here asemi-argumentative force, 
explaining and, in effect, confirming 
the foregoing clause. On this use of 
the relative, which is by no means 
uncommon (see ch. i. 30, iv. 17), and 
almost speaks for itself, see notes oz 
Col. i. 18, and on I Zim. ii. 4. The 
term ixavds is here used in its partially 
derivative sense of ‘aptus,’ ‘idoneus’ 
(scil. ‘ suffictens viribus ;’ 2 Cor. ii. 16, 
iii. 5), the transition from which to the 
more distinctly derivative idea of ‘ dig- 
nus ’ (Vulg., and all the other Versions; 
comp. Matt. ili. 11, viii. 8, Mark i. 7, 
Luke iii. 16, vii. 6) is obvious and in- 
telligible. The idea here, however, 


294 


clay Tov Oeov:  ydpits de Oeod 
7 €ls E€ue ov Kevt éyevnOn, adXrAa 


> / > e) \ \ ? DY e / la) 6 \ > i 
exoTTlaga, oUK éyw SE GAA  yapis TOD Ccod adv éeyoi. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


CuaP. XV. 9, 10 


’ cca 4 . Se / > al 
ELL O ELL, Kal 7) YapLs avTOD 
TEPLOTOTEPOV AVT@V TaVvTw@V 


ll e/re 


10. ody euol] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort (with margin), 
on‘clearly preponderating authority: Rec., 4 civ éuol. . 


seems more that of ‘meetness’ and of 
‘moral fitness.’ The Apostle regards 
his early life as disqualifying him, had 
it not been for God’s mercy, for bearing 
so high a title. Bidre ediwta 
K.T.A.] ‘ decause [ persecuted the Church 
of God ;’ reason why he so speaks of 
himself, the d:drt (51a rodr0 871) having 
its usual causal force (‘quoniam,’ Vulg.; 
‘propterea quod,’ Beza), and differing 
very slightly from 871; see notes oz 
Gal. ii. 16. On this and the following 
verse, and on the conversion of the 
Apostle viewed in relation to his office, 
see Newman, Paroch. Serm. Vol. 1. 
p- 106 sqq. 

10. Xdpute Sé Ocod k.t.d.] ‘but by the 
grace of God Lam what Lam ;’ contrast- 
ed sentence recounting how God’s grace 
made him to be what he now was, scil. 


‘apostolus, qui Christum vidi,’ Bengel : - 


7% pev eAaTTHuaTa éavT@ Aoyilerar Te 
St KaTopOwuara xapiTt TOD Ocod dvarlOnor, 
Theoph. ov Kevi) éyevnOn] ‘ aid 
not prove vain,’ 7.e. without effect, and 
adequate results: so eis xevdv, Phil, ii. 
16, 1 Thess. ili. 5. The word éyerhOn 
is passive only in form; hence, ‘ was 
not found,’ Rev., would appear to be 
stronger than usage fully justifies ; 
see notes on ch. viii. 6. 

GAAG repirodtepov K.T.A.] ‘beet [labored 
more abundantly than they all ;’ con- 
trasted statement (a@AAd) to the pre- 
ceding negative clause, the mepicod- 
tepov being the accusative of the de- 
fining or quantitative object, appended 
to the intransitive éxomiaca, and speci- 
fying the amount of the 7d Komér: 
comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 410. 3. rem. 5. 
There is some little doubt whether 


aitav mavtwy is to be taken with a 
collective (‘all of them’), or an indi- 
vidualizing (‘every one of them ’) force. 
No inference can safely be drawn from 
the order of the words, the position of 
mdvrwy being the prevailing one in 
pronominal expressions of this nature 
(comp. Winer, Gr. § 61. 2. 4), but it 
may perhaps be inferred from the 
probable meaning of rots dmoordAots 
mao (ver. 7: see notes) that no par- 
ticular emphasis is intended to be 
placed on the dytwy, and so, that the 
ordinary collective meaning is to be 
preferred. On the use of kxoméy in 
reference to ministerial labor (Rom. 
xvi. 12, Gal. iv. 11, Phil. ii. 16, al.), with 
allusion to the accompanying toil and 
suffering, see notes oz 1 Zim. iv. 10. 

ovk éyd 8 K.7.A.] ‘yet not 1, but the 
grace of God with me:’ qualification of 
the mepicodtepov x.7.r., and reference 
of the spiritual energy he had been 
permitted to put forth to the true 
source of all: kal Td KomiGoat SE avTd THs 
TOU Ocod xdpiros eotiv, Theoph. The 
antithesis ov« —aAAd is not to be di- 
luted or explained away (see Winer, 
Gr. § 55. 8): the Apostle with his 
characteristic humility, especially with 
ediwta Thy éxxAnoiay almost still on his 
lips, ascribes all his «ézos to the grace 
of God that thus éxorlacey with him, 
and made him more fruitful in spir- 
itual labors than all the rest. Had not 
the grace of God labored with him 
there would have been no result. If 
the article (Zec.) had formed a part of 
the text, the statement would have 
been sill stronger, ‘not I, but the 
grace of God which was with me did 


CHAP. XV. 10-12. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


295 


lal 4 \ , 
ovv éy@ elite éxeivor, oUTwWS KNPUTTOMEY Kal OUTWS éTLCTEVTATE. 


If Christ did not rise 
we are false teachers, 
and your hope is vain. 


12 Ei 6€ Xpictos Knovocetar OTL €K veKpav 
Ui] Pp 


eynyepTat, TOs Aéyovow év tpiy Twes OTL 


12. év duiv twés] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on dis- 
tinctly preponderating authority: Rec., tues év duly. 


the blessed work;’ ‘gratiam Dei 
omnium effectricem testatur,’ Calvin. 
That Estius should labor to explain 
away such a statement (‘non ego 
principaliter; aut non tam ego, quam 
gratia Dei’) is by no means unnatural. 
The true reading, however, involves 
no difficulties. 

Il. elre ody éyd K.t.d.] ‘ Whether 
then it were I or they ;’ obv having here 
its vesumptive force (see notes oz Gal. 
iii. 5, and om Phil. iii. 1), and referring 
back to ver. 8. The main idea of the 
verse, however, viz. the testifying what 
they had been permitted to see (o¥rws 
Knpvaoouev), really flows from the 
allusions to ministerial labors in the 
two digressive verses, —‘whether it 
were I or they (to whom the mani- 
festations were vouchsafed, and who, 
as I have just said, respectively labored 
as I have stated), so we preach etc.’ 
The éxetvo: must obviously be those to 
whom the verses immediately preceding 
more particularly refer,— ‘alii Apostoli, 
quibus Christus post resurrectionem 
visus est,’ Estius. ovTws 
Kynpiooopev K.T.A.] So we preach, and 
so ye believed — when the Gospel was 
first preached to you;’ comp. ver. 2. 
The first oftws refers to the funda- 
mental truths delivered (ver. 3) and, as 
the tenor of the whole passage shows, 
more especially to dre eyhyeptat K.7.A. 
(ver. 4); the second to the substance 
of the khpuyua they had received: ovx 
elme mioteveTe, GAA® éemiorevoate. ereid) 
éaadevovTo, 51a TOUTO em) ToOvs yw Xpdvous 
Gvédpauc, kal Thy Tap’ avtav éxeivwr 
Aoumdy paptuplay mpootidnaw, Chrys. : 
comp. Hofmann 7x loc. The émored- 


cate is used, as in ver. 2 (see notes), 
with reference to the time when the 
Gospel was first preached among them. 


12-19. Christ’s resurrection is that 
on which the resurrection of the dead 
wholly depends. 12. Hi 8 Xpiorrds 
K.T.A.] ‘Vow if Christ ts preached that 
He hath been raised from the dead:’ 
transition, by means of the 8 yera- 
Batixdv (notes oz Gal. i. 11) to the 
actual controversy, the particle, how- 
ever, still retaining its proper oppositive 
force in the contrast it marks between 
the truth preached and the false views 
that were entertained. The order of 
the words, and the attraction of the 
substantive from the dependent, to the 
principal, clause (see Winer, Gr. § 66. 
5), arise from the desire to place 
Xpiords in distinct prominence: Christ’s 
resurrection forms the nerve of the 
argument. On the éyfyeptai, see notes 
on ver. 3. mas héyourw év 
tpiv tivés] ‘how zs it that some say 
among you,—not only think, but give 
expression to their thoughts; the més 
(‘qui fit ut ;’ comp. Gal. ii. 14, iii. 6, al.) 
marking the sort of surprise in the 
Apostle’s mind that it was possible for 
any of them, among whom Christ’s 
resurrection had been preached, to 
affirm what inferentially denied it. 
Chrysostom rightly calls attention to 
the use of the twés as marking an 
unwillingness on the part of the Apostle 
to specify: some there’ were, probably 
not many, but the error of these men, 
whether few or many, was so deadly 
that it called for immediate refutation. 
On this use of twés, as implying that 


/ 


296 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. XV. 12-14. 


avactacts vexpav ovk Eotw ; * €t dé avactacis vexpav ovK éoTW, 


ovde Xpioros eynryepTar. 


the Apostle did not deem specification 
necessary, whether from the fewness of 
the Aéyovres, or from any other reason, 
comp. Hermann, Viger, No. 114. The 
év juiv, even in the present order, may 
be joined with tuvés (Syr., Goth., Cyril), 
but is much more naturally connected 
with the verb (Vulg.), the twés standing 
out in its isolation; so Chrys., though 
adopting the order tivés év duiv. 

Who these teachers were, and what 
exactly was the tenor of their teaching, 
has been very differently estimated. 
That they were originally heathens, and 
men of a so-called philosophic tone of 
mind (comp. ch. i. 20), seems highly 
probable (consider Acts xvii. 18); and 
that they denied, not necessarily the 
existence of the soul after death (comp. 
Cyril. ap. Cramer, Caz.), but what they 
would have described as the material- 
istic conceptions involved in the 
teaching of the resurrection of the 
body. The avderacis which they de- 
nied was an dvdoracis vexp@y (comp. 
Acts. xvii. 32), an avdoracis such as 
was preached at Corinth and in the 
universal Christian Church. That 
teaching was never favorable to a 
mere bodiless immortality : see Dorner, 
Chr. Doctrine, § 153, 111. Vol. Iv. p. 407. 
otk tot] ’ zs ot, scil. ‘has no exis- 
tence’; ‘nist,’ Goth., sim. Vulg., Copt. 
In translation it is difficult to maintain 
this emphatic position of the negative 
predication, but in the original it is 
cleary marked and intentional; comp. 
Eph. vi. 9, tpoowroAnuvla obk éorw rap’ 
auTe@. 

13. eb 88 dvdoracis K.T.A.] ‘But if 
there is nu resurrection of the dead,’ Or, 
more exactly, ‘if a resurrection of the 
dead has no existence, — the partly 
continuative, and also partly antithet- 
ical, 8é (comp. notes on ch. xi. 20) com- 


Me, b€ Xpiotos ovK eynyeptar, Kevov 


mencing the argument against the as- 
sertion of the twés, and reiterating 
their words: ‘argumentatur a negato 
consequente ad negationem antece- 
dentis,’ Estius. On the perfectly nat- 
ural and indeed proper use of, ed« 
in this clause, ov« éorw forming as it 
were a single verb, see Winer, Gr. § 
55: 2. 8, but see also notes on ch. vii. 
9: ov8t Xpirrds éyfyeprar] 
‘ Christ also hath not been raised,’ or, 
for the sake of keeping the ov8€ in its 
position of emphasis, ‘neither hath 
Christ been raised,’ Rev., ‘nih Christus, 
urrais,’ Goth. The reasoning is here 
somewhat differently estimated. The 
Greek expositors (not, however, Theod.) 
appear to regard the argument as rest- 
ing on the fact that Christ was raised 
for the good of the race, and was (ver. 
20) the &mrapxn: if there was no resur- 
rection of the dead, His resurrection 
would have had no place or purpose; 
tlvos yap Evexev Gveorn, et wh Euevev Huiv 
amapx} eivat, Theoph. This is plausible, 
but what is really thus proved is, not 
the fact that Christ did not rise (the 
simple matter with which we are here 
concerned), but that, if he did, His 
rising was of no avail,—an aspect of 
the question not now before us. We 
adopt, then, the view of Theodoret, 
that the argument turns on the verity 
of Christ’s manhood: céua yap kad 6 
deomdrns elxe Xpictés, Theod. If there 
is no such thing as a bodily resurrec- 
tion, then there can be no such thing 
as a raising of Christ’s body, as 
preached everywhere and in every 
Church; consider Acts ii. 31, 32. This 
and the preceding verse form the sort 
of text for a portion of the article on 
the Resurrection in Jackson Ox the 
Creed, Vol. X. p. 235 sqq. (Oxf. 1844). 
14. eb 8 Xpiorrds odk éyhyeprar] 


othe 


Cuap. XV. 14, 15. 1 CORINTHIANS. 297 


dpa TO Knpvypa nudv, Kevyn Kal  TioTis tuov? © ebpicKdpeOa 


\ \ , a a e/ > / \ aA 
dé Kal yevdouaptupes Tod Ocod, btu euaptupyjcayev Kata Tod 


14. nev) kat] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very 
greatly preponderating evidence: Rec. kev) 5¢ kal. In the former clause the 
insertion of «af after %pa has distinctly good support ([Zachm.], Tisch.), but is 
probably the result of an assimilative correction. In regard also of the last 
word of the verse the reading is slightly doubtful; Westc. and Hort read fuav 


on good, but, as it would seem, insufficient authority. 


preceding pronoun is not unlikely. 


‘But of Christ hath not been raised, — 
the dé, as in the preceding verse, car- 
rying forward the reasoning, under the 
same partly continuative, partly anti- 
thetical sequence, and the ovx, as be- 
fore, being closely united with the 
verb, scil. ‘if there has been no raising 
of Christ ;’ ‘sublato articulo resurrec- 
tionis Christi, tota spes, quam in 
Christo habemus, concidit,’ Estius. 

kevov dpa Td KApVyBa huov] ‘empty 
certainly, ts our preaching ;’ the revdv 
being placed in a distinct position of 
emphasis, and the &pa, with here its 
‘levior quedam ratiocinatio’ (Klotz, 
Devar, Vol. i. p. 160), adding a con- 
firmatory force to the clause, and im- 
plying that what is asserted is beyond 
all reasonable doubt: see Kiihner, Gr. 
§ 549. 2, 3, and the careful investiga- 
tion of Baumlein, Gr. Partik. p. 21 sq,: 
see also notes oz Gal. v.11. The kfh- 
puyua in the assumed case would be 
kevéy ; it would contain no substantive, 
no objective truth, nothing to which 
the preacher could appeal as a ‘ vera 
res’ (Bengel), and an admitted fact: 
with the resurrection all other great 
Christian realities, atonement, redemp- 
tion, forgiveness, would disappear ; 
dmavra ofxetat, Chrys. Kev?) kal 
4 tlotis tpaov] ‘empty also is your 
Jaith :’ if the khpvyua is revdy (‘inanis,’ 
Vulg.), then that which is evoked by 
it, through hearing (Rom. x. 14),— 
faith in the Lord Jesus Christ — is 
empty and unreal also: odx jets 5é wd- 

38 


Assimilation to the 


vov keva. exnpttawer, GAG Kad Suets Kevae 
émorevoate, Chrys. 

15. edpiokdpeda St k.t.A.] ‘and (fur 
ther) we are found,—shown by the 
circumstances or issue to be etc.;’ the 
sé having its copulative or rather ad- 
Junctive force, and introducing a fresh 
moment of thought (Kiihner, Gr. § 
532. I),;— viz. that it was not only a 
kevov khpvyua but a pevdouaprupla,—and 
the edpioxdueda preserving its usual and 
proper distinction from iva, with 
which, neither here nor elsewhere in 
the N. T. (Matt. i. 18, Luke xvii. 18, 
al.), it is in any degree synonymous : 
see Winer, Gr. § 65. 8, and notes ox 
Gal. ii. 17. kal irevSoudprupes 
tod Ocod] ‘ also false witnesses of God ;’ 
the ascensive nat slightly emphasizing 
the word it precedes, and bringing out 
the whole serious aspects of the asser- 
tion (ver. 12) with which the Apostle is 
now dealing. It is somewhat doubtful 
whether the rod @cod is a gen, subjecti 
(‘false witnesses in God’s service’) or 
object? (‘false witnesses concerning 
God’): either gives good sense; the 
latter, however, seems most in harmony 
with the context. Soapparently Copt., 
Cyril (Cramer, Cat.), Bengel (‘de Deo’), 
al., and Winer, Gr. § 30. I. a. 
épaprupyoapev Kata Tod Ocod] ‘we bore 
witness (when we preached the resur- 
rection) concerning God ;’ not ‘adver- 
sus Deum,’ Vulg., the common usage 
(ch. iv. 6, Matt. x. 35, xxvi. 59, 62, Acts 
vi. 13, Rom. viil. 53, al.), but ‘de Deo,’ 


298 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. XV. 15-18. 


(3) a ed ” \ x Ld a > 4 wv a 4 
€0V OTL YYELPEV TOV PlLoTOV, OV OUK IYELPEY ELTTED APA VEKPOb 


ovK éyeipovTaL. 


1622 \ \ > Ca sene > 52 b x 
€l Yap VEKPOL OVK EVYELPOVYTAL, OQVOE ploTos 


> / 17 > be \ > > / Ul ¢e / e€ lal - 
eynyeptat* 1 et dé Xpiatos ovK eynyepTat, MATAaLa 1) TLOTLS DLO 


Erasm., and apparently Syr., Copt., 
Arm.,—the idea of a hostile intention 
not apparently lying in the context. 
In such a case we should have ex- 
pected Wevdoudprupes kata Tod cod in 
the preceding clause, as it is actually 
cited in Cyril. We retain, therefore, 
under the influence of the context, the 
neutral rendering, even though no 
similar instance occurs in the N. T.: 
comp., however, Plato, Pedr. p. 279, 
pavrevoucn kat’ avtov, and Kiihner, Gr. 
§ 433. 11. 3. The preachers (on the 
assumption running through the pas- 
sage) might have been Wevdoudprupes 
through mispersuasion, without any 
designed misrepresentation. 

elrep dpa. K.t.A.] ‘7fso be that the dead 
verily are not raised;’ the etmep (‘si 
omnino,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. I. p. 528) 
adding force and amplitude to the con- 
dition (comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 510. 5), 
and the &pa, as above, ver. 14 (see 
notes), giving a further confirmatory 
emphasis and enhancement; ‘si vide- 
licet mortuinon excitantur,’ Beza. On 
the distinction between efrep and evye, 
see notes oz Gal. vii. 4, and comp. 
Hermann, }7gev, No. 310. It will be 
observed that here, and throughout the 
passage, vexpol is anarthrous. The 
dead are not regarded as aclass (comp. 
ver. 52, 2 Cor. i. 9, Col. i. 18), but as 
individuals in the state described,— 
‘dead persons,’ ‘dead men.’ This, 
however, can hardly be expressed in 
an ordinary English translation. 

16. el yap vexpol x.7.A.] Confirmation 
of the dv od« Hyepev just preceding by 
a practical repetition of the statement 
in verse 13. This verse and the fol- 
lowing, and ver. 20, form the general 
text to ch. xvi. (Book x1.) in Jackson 


On the Creed, Vol. x. p. 305 sqq. (Oxf. 
1844). 

17. eb 8& Xpiords «.t.d.] Conse- 
quences of the ovd& Xpiotds eyhyeptat 
again set forth, as in ver. 14 but, in 
the present case, with fuller statement 
of the personal consequences to the 
Corinthians and to believers generally. 
If no resurrection of Christ, then a 
faith, not only without any real sub- 
stance whereon to rest, but without 
any fruit or moral results whatever; 
comp. Hofmann 7x Zoc. parata 
A wloris bpov] ‘vain ( fruztless) is your 
faith ;’? the predicate, as in ver. 14, 
standing prominently forward, and 
specifying the absence of all saving 
issues : it was no ‘fides salvifica.’ On 
the meaning of pdraos, and its dis- 
tinction from xevés, see notes on Tit. 
iii. 9. éru €oré év K.T.A.] ‘ye are 
yet im your sins,—in the sphere of 
them, and encompassed by them: illus- 
tration of the pataidrys of their faith, 
on the assumption of the first clause. 
If Christ never rose again, the: re- 
demptive work of Christ was anullity ; 
there was not, and could not be, any 
Sixalwois (Rom. iv. 25): ei yap Kal airds 
KatesxéOn bd Tod Oavatov, Kal ovK 
ZAvcev avTOU Tas Wdivas, THs TdvTAs TOUS 
&Aous amndradatey étt avTds Karexduevos ; 
Chrys. There is a little difference 
between the present expression and i¢’ 
Gpaptiav elvat, Rom. iii. 9. 

18. dpa Kal x.t.d.] 6 Zhen (in that 
case) they also that were laid to sleep in 
Christ :’ a further consequence (&pa,— 
see notes oz Gal. v. It), emerging 
through the last clause (@ éoré x.7.A.) 
from the leading hypothesis, ef Xpiords 
ovk éyhyeptat, and affecting not only the 
living, but the dead. The term kommn- 





Cuap. XV. 18, 19. 


1rCORINTHPANS. 


299 


” +) \ b] a ig / ( a 18 ” \ € bé 4 > 
€T E€OTE EV TAL ALAPTLALS ULOV. apa KL OL KOLUNUEVTES €V 


XpictG ararovto. Mei ev TH bwh tavTy ev Xpiotp NITLKOTES 


€ouev povov, edeeworepor Travtov avOpwmav eo ue. 


19. ev XpiorgG HATudtes eouer] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and 
Hort, on very clearly preponderating authority: Rec., namucdstes eouev ev Xpior@. 


Oévres ev Xpiov@ (‘laid to sleep 7 
Christ,’ ze. in faith and communion 
with Him; 7d év rH tlote: pyoty, Chrys. 
1) is studiously chosen, as involving 
and carrying with it the very persuasion 
which, on the assumption of ver. 17, 
would be annihilated. On the term 
koaca: in reference to death, see 
notes oz 1 Thess. iv. 13; and on the 
close union of the prepositional clause 
with the participle, see Winer, G7. § 
20. 2. amddovto] ‘have perished, 
—ihe aorist not necessarily referring 
to the time when they breathed out 
their last breath, in which case the 
verb would simply have a_ physical 
reference (‘nulli sunt,’ Bengel), but 
to the a@méAea after this world con- 
sequent on their dying in their sins: 
érwrducba, Kal ért oper ev Tals Guaptias, 
Chrysost. on -ver. 19. Whether that 
améAea is completed or not the tense 
does not specify: the assumption being 
true, it states that itcame. We thus 
retain in English the ‘have’ as less 
sharply placing the whole action in the 
past; the difference between the Greek 
aorist and the English aorist being ap- 
parently just this,— that in English the 
tense remands us so wholly to the past 
as to imply that the action was com- 
pleted and done with, whereas in 
Greek the tense refers us to the past, 
but is silent as to the completion or 
non-completion of the action: see 
Kiihner, Gr. § 386. 3, and notes o7 Phil. 
i. 29. On the use and meaning of 
améAAvut in the N.T., see Cremer, 
Worterb. 8. Ve Pp. 455- 

19. ev TH Loy Tabry k.t.A.] ‘Zf we 
are only having our hope in Christ in 


this life:’ designedly unconnected sen- 
tence, expressing with abruptness and 
pathos the sad lot of the living Chris- 
tian, as the former verse alluded to that 
of the departed. The words, though 
apparently simple in meaning and 
structure, require some care in their 
interpretation. The following seem to 
be the structural and grammatical de- 
tails on which a correct interpretation 
must be based. (1) The leading em- 
phasis rests on the words éy Ti (wf 
ratty, as calling the hearer’s or reader’s 
attention to the present as well as 
future issues of a hope such as that 
here assumed and implied, viz. an 
abiding hope during life (perf. part.: 
see Kiihner, Gr. § 389. 7. e) in a dead 
Christ. (2) The appended adverb 
uédvor is also, as its position indicates, 
distinctly emphatic, and qualifies the 
whole clause (Rev. marg.),— not merely 
the ¢v 7H (wf tat’tn from which it 
really is structurally dissociated. The 
adverb excludes the conception of the 
hope, as specified, having any future 
significance. It begins in this life, 
closes with this life, and looks for 
nothing beyond: dorepdvwros  Puxh 
pévet, Chrys. (3) The éopey is not a 
mere associated auxiliary to the par- 
ticiple, so that #Am«éres éoper is only 
a little stronger than 7Amixaev (1 Tim. 
iv. 10: comp. notes 7 Zoc.), and prac- 
tically equivalent to it, but is the copula, 
what precedes being the predicate,— 
‘persons having only hope in Christ in 
this life:’ comp. Vulg., ‘sperantes su- 
mus,’ and contrast ‘speravimus.’ 
Erasm., Bengel; ‘speramus,’ Beza. 
The translation adopted above recog- 


300 


Christ verily has risen, 
and in him all will rise. 
Then will follow the 
mighty issues of the 
future. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


aTrapy? TOY KeKolnuevov. 


CHAP. XV. 19, 20. 


20 Nuvi dé, Xpuotos éyyyeptar éx vexpav, 


1 érrevd) yap ov 


20. Kekolunuevwy] So, without any addition, Zachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev. 
Westc. and Hort, on greatly preponderating authority: Rec. adds éyevero. 


nizes as far as possible these details, 
but conformably with English empha- 
sis transposes the position of the em- 
phatic words. On the force 
of the év Xpirro@ (‘7 Christ,’— He 
being the object zz whom the hope 
was placed), see notes o7 Eph. i. 12. 
XeevStepor K.T.A.] ‘we are more than 
all men to be pitied, ‘miserabiliores 
sumus omnibus hominibus,’ Vulg. ; be- 
cause we lead self-denying, suffering, 
and persecuted lives (1 Cor. v. 12 sqq.), 
and, after all, are only hopers in Christ 
in this life, with no ray to cheer us in 
the future: in this world, ma@quara 
(Rom. viii. 18), in the world to come, 
améreia. The form édeewds (not from 
éAeos, but from éAeéw; see Donald. Gr. 
§ 362) is found in Attic Greek: comp. 
Winer, Gr. § 16. 3. y. For an instruc- 
tive sermon on this text, see Frank, 
Serm. 37, Vol. 11. p. 148 sqq. (A.-C. 
Libr.). 


20-28. Christ's resurrection that from 
which all the issues of the boundless 
future directly flow. 

20. Nuvi Sé«.7.d.] ‘ But, as it is, Christ 
hath been raised from the dead ;’ con- 
trasted statement, by means of the 
logical yuvi (see notes on ch. xiii. 13, 
and comp. notes on xii. 18), with what 
has preceded, all the deductions from 
the contrary hypothesis (ver. 14 sqq.) 
being inferentially negatived (see 
Bengel), and the true state of the case, 
with all its momentous consequences, 
clearly set forth; Aomdy dmopaytikas 
Aéyet, Chrys. (Cramer, Caz.) 

There is some little doubt as to the 
logical connection of this verse,— 
whether it is to be considered as be- 


ginning a new paragraph (Zev. comp. 
Wetst. and Hort), as concluding the 
foregoing argument (7Zyeg.), or as 
forming a kind of link between ver. 
19 and ver. 21,—standing in contrast 
with the former, and calling out the 
argument that is opened up by the 
latter (Lachm., Tisch.). On the whole. 
the first view seems to be the most 
contextually natural. In what pre- 
cedes the Apostle shows the effect 
which the non-resurrection of Christ 
would have had, first, on Christian 
preaching, and next on Christian life. 
In what follows he shows the effect of 
that which is actually and truly the 
fact,—Christ’s resurrection: comp. 
Hofmann zz /oc. arapX? TOv 
Kexoipnpevov] ‘the first-fruits of them 
that are fallen asleep ;’ apposition, not 
simply to the foregoing nominative, 
but to the nominative as associated 
with the predication, — the risen Christ 
being the dmapxf, and the defining 
partitive gen. specifying those to whom 
He stood in this relation: comp. Col. i. 
18, mpwrdétokos ék Tay vexpav, and Rev. 
i. 5, mpwrdtoxos Tav vexpav, where the 
genitive is of a similarly partitive char- 
acter. The question is very elaborately 
discussed by Origen (Cramer, Cuz.) 
whether we are to understand from 
this passage that our Lord was the 
arapxn of all, or only of the faithful. 
That in the resurrection of Christ we 
have the assurance that all will rise 
appears to be certain from the general 
tenor of the chapter, and particularly 
from ver. 22, but that the gvpaua of 
which He is here spoken of as the 
amapxh (Rom. xi. 16) is equally inclu- 
sive is by no means similarly clear. 


CHapP. XV. 20-22. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


301 


> 0 , fa} / \ } 3 >’ 0 , > / lal 99 a 
QVUPWTOU UaVATOS, Kab OL AVUPWTTOV AVATTAOIS VEKPWV. WO- 


\ > rn? \ , 2 , o \ 3 a 
méep yap é€v 76 “Adaw Tavtes atoOvncKovew, ovTws Kal év TO 


21. @dvatos] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly 
preponderating evidence: Rec., 6 @dvaros. 


The expression Tay kekolunevwr, es- 
pecially with vexp@y in the same verse, 
appears to point the other way, and to 
suggest the limitation to the sleeping 
faithful, to those ‘ qui in spe resurrec- 
tionis quiescunt,’ Aquin. 

21. ered) yap «.T.A.] ‘For since 
through man cometh death ;’ confirma- 
tory reason for the foregoing state- 
ment (efta kad aittoAoye?, Chrys.), the 
emeion (‘quoniam,’ Vulg., Arm.), with 
its causal and ratiocinative force (see 
notes oz Phil. ii. 26), putting forward 
the reference to the foreordering of 
divine mercy, and the ydp, with its 
usual confirmatory reference, substan- 
tiating the amapx} Tay Kexoyunuevwy of 
the preceding verse. Christ verily was 
the first-fruits of the kexoiunuévor; man 
in His blessed person, was the cazsa 
medians of avdoTacis, aS man was 
originally the causa medians of Odvaros ; 
comp. especially the important parallel 
statements in Rom. v. 12 sqq., where 
the manner of the entry of death, viz. 
did THs Gmaprias (ver. 12; scil. 7G Tod 
évbs TapamTa@muatt, ver. 15), and the con- 
verse are both very fully discussed and 
explained. The ellipsis is to be sup- 
plied simply by gor, but in a stronger 
sense than that of the mere copula, 
scil. ‘exists,’ ‘facta est,’ Copt., Ath.; 
see Winer, Gr. § 64. 3. b. 
avacrrtacis vexpav] ‘resurrection of the 
dead, or, more exactly, of dead men,— 
the article being “designedly omitted, 
as in av@pémov and @avatos, that each 
term might stand forth in its most 
general form and its unrestricted 
breadth of meaning; comp. Kiihner, 
Gr. § 462. h. The application of this 
general statement appears in the fol- 
lowing verse. 


22. domwep yap K.T.A.] ‘For as in 
Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all 
be made alive ;’ confirmatory explana- 
tion of the preceding verse, the con- 
trastive domep (‘wép vim eam [compar- 
ativam], quam habet és, usitato more 
auget atque effert,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 
II. p. 768), bringing out the full signifi- 
cance and contrasted relations of the 
5” avOpemov in each member of the 
foregoing verse. Two points require 
careful consideration, —the meaning 
of évy in each member, and the latitude 
of the meaning of wavres. As regards 
(1) the meaning of éy, there can be no 
reason for departing from the prevail- 
ing reference of the preposition (in 
the case of persons) to the ‘sphere,’ 
‘substratum,’ or ‘ basis’ (see notes ov 
Gal. i. 24, ii. 17, and comp. above, ch. 
vii. 24 and notes 27 /oc.), in which, or 
on which, the action takes place. The 
preposition will thus in each member 
of the verse specify the one in whom, 
as it were, the mavres were included, or 
(more probably) on whom they de- 
pended as the basis (comp. Winer, Gr. 
§ 48. a. 3, d,) whether in reference to 
7d amoOvjcKely OY to Td Cworroteiobat. All 
die in Adam; human nature, as Cyril 
(Cramer, Caz.) says, being condemned 
in him: all are quickened, or made 
alive, in Christ, His vivifying power 
being imparted to all. It is 
more difficult (2) to decide on the 
latitude of the reference of the second 
mdvres, many of the best interpreters 
(Augustine, Grotius, Bengel, al.) con- 
sidering that the év Xpior@ and the use 
of the term (womoetoda, rather than 
éyelpecOa or dviorac@at, must limit the 
reference to believers: so also Weiss, 
Bibl. Theol. § 99, Vol. U1. p. 72 note 


802 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap, XV. 22, 23. 


Xpiot@ mavres Cworronycovra. ™ xaotos b& ev TH idiw 


(Transl.). As, however, the first rdvres 
must, by the nature of the case, include 
all (‘omnes filii hominum,’ Syr.), and 
as the second mdyres cannot, on any 
sound principles of interpretation, be 
regarded as quantitatively different 
from the first, especially in a studied 
antithesis like the present (éomep — 
oUTws Kat),— we adopt, with the Greek 
interpreters, the inclusive reference, 
and regard the €xaoros 8€ «.7.A. in ver. 
23 as guarding, and designed to guard, 
against any misconception of the in- 
clusiveness: see Theodoret 77 Joc., 
and comp. Origen (Cramer, Catez.), 
who appears to have taken the inclu- 
sive view, though he has failed to make 
his meaning perfectly clear. Christ 
will quicken all; all will hear his voice, 
and will go forth from the grave, but 
not all to the true avdoracis (wis; see 
John v. 29. The general truth is well 
expressed by Bp. Martensen, — ‘ the un- 
conditioned destiny of all men is immor- 
tality; but we at the same time teach 
that mankind.are only saved condition- 
ally, by being born again and made holy, 
Chr. Dogm. § 274, p. 454 (Transl.). 
The use of mdytes in Rom. v. 18 is 
similarly inchisive ; see Meyer zx Joc. 

{ootronPirovrat] ‘shall be guickened 
or made alive.’ There is not in this 
word any intrinsic ‘sensus beatz resur- 
rectionis,’ Grot. It simply implies ‘to 
quicken,’ ‘ vivificare,’ Vulg,, whether 
in a spiritual (John v. 21, vi. 63, Rom. 
viii. 11) or in a natural sense (ch. xv. 
36, Rom. iv. 17), the context in each 
case being the guide as to which of 
the two senses is referred to. It is 
here used rather than dvacrhoovra, or 
even éyep@hoovra, as suggesting more 
distinctly agency and agent, and so the 
real source of the dvdoracts. The word 
is occasionally found in classical Greek : 
see Theophrast. de Causis Plant. Ul. 


22, (worroe? mws f Oepudtns cvochmovea 
thy piCav: see also Aristot. Hist. Anim. 
Viera 1) 

23. tkaoros St «.t.A.] ‘ Bot! cach in 
his oun band or class ;’ limitation, by 
means of the antithetical 5¢, of the inclu- 
sive statement in the preceding clause; 
tva wy Thy Cworoinow Kowhy akotoas, Kar 
Tovs GuapTwAovs voulons od (ecOu, érh- 
yayev Exagros 8€ K.7.A., Chrys.; comp 
Theod. The word rdyua is here used 
in its proper and technical sense of 
‘band’ or ‘company’ (comp. Arrian, 
Ars Tact. cap. 9, weweptomevor és Tdyuata, 
2 Sam. xxiii. 13, Tdyua Tay GAAOPUAWY,) 
not ‘order’ in reference to desert or 
merit (agimuart, Zonaras, Lex. p. 1714, 
referring to this passage: comp. Ter- 
tull. De Resurr. cap. 48), or to time: 
so perhaps Theodoret (who here alludes 
to ‘the sheep’ and ‘the goats’ of 
Matt. xxv. 32), but apparently not any 
of the Vv. or early interpreters, all 
of whom appear to regard the word as 
synonymous with tdéis. This latter 
view is maintained by DeWette, Riick- 
ert, al., but without any linguistic sup- 
port, except the singularly precarious 
assertion, that as rd&s sometimes may 
bear the proper meaning of tdyua, so 
Tdyua may sometimes bear the usual 
meaning of tds. The instinct of 
Bengel (though he adopts the meaning 
of ‘ordo’) led him rightly to say, ‘tdés 
tamen est abstractum, tdyya concre- 
tum.’ For examples of the correct 
meaning of the word, see the copious 
list in Steph. Zhesaur. s.v. Vol. VII. p. 
1767 (ed. Hase), where the uses of this 
word are very fully illustrated. 
arapx?} Xpiords] ‘as the firstfruits 
Christ ;’ scil. ‘ vivificatus est’ (Est.), 
the fact of the case suggesting the 
tense. To supply the auxiliary verb 
in this verse (Bengel; comp. Hof- 
mann) is to mar the natural continuity, 


Cwap. XV. 23. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


303 


Taypati* atapyn Xpiortos, érevta of Tov Xpwotov év TH Tap- 


23. Tod Xpiorod] The rod is omitted in Rec., apparently from oversight or 


error. 


and the almost certain structural con- 
nection of this verse with the pre- 
ceding; note, however, the typography 
of Westc. and Hort, which seems rather 
to indicate a slight break between the 
verses. On the contrary, Lachm. sepa- 
rates the two verses only by a comma. 
This, however, clearly weakens the 
independence and force of the first 
clause of the verse. The most natural 
typography and punctuation seems to 
be that of the text: the words €xacrTos 
K.7.A. enunciate a new but associated 
fact, which is then illustrated and sub- 
stantiated by what follows. 

trea ot Tod Xpiorrod] ‘then they that 
are Christ’s, ‘qui ad Christum per- 
tinent,’ Estius, ‘ Christum attinentes,’ 
fEth.: comp. Gal. v. 24. The idea of 
proximity in point of time, which is 
often marked by émeira (see notes oz 
1 Thess. iv. 17), cannot here be pressed. 
It marks the next and second act in 
the mighty drama, but the real epoch 
of the occurrence to which it refers is 
defined by the concluding words of the 
verse. év TH Tapovela avrod] 
‘at his coming:’ specification of the 
time and circumstances in which, and 
under which, the of rod Xpiorod will be 
made alive; their (womohois will be 
involved 27 his mapovata. This mapovota 
of Christ is not merely, or exclusively, 
to establish His kingdom (comp. 
Meyer zz Zoc.), but to judge the quick 
and the dead: kar& roy Tis ocuvredAclas 
kaipdv, Theod.; comp. 1 Thess. ii. 19, 
iii. 13, iv. 15, v. 23, al. Whether any, 
and if any, what interval is to be sup- 
posed to exist between this mapovota 
and the 7d réAos of the following verse, 
—in fact between the ére:ra and the 
elra,—the sober interpreter cannot 
presume even to attempt to indicate. 


This only may be said, that the lan- 
guage seems to imply a kind of interval ; 
but that there is nothing in the particles 
or in the passage to warrant our con- 
ceiving it to be longer than would 
include the subjugation of every foe 
and every power of evil, and all that 
may be immediately associated with 
the mighty réAos which is specified in 
the succeeding verse: comp. Plitt, 
Glaubenslehre, § 78, Vol. 11. p. 370. It 
must be carefully remembered that 
the Apostle is here dealing with a 
single subject, the resurrection of the 
dead, and not with the connected de- 
tails of eschatology. These must be 
gathered from other passages and 
other portions of Scripture; comp. 
notes oz I Thess. iv. 17. The great 
difficulty in Christian eschatology is 
the exact position which all that is 
specified in Rey. xx. 4 is to be supposed 
to hold in the sequences of the un- 
folding future. On this profound sub- 
ject, see the wise and suggestive com- 
ments of Dorner, Chr. Doctr. § 152, 
Vol. Iv. p. 389 sq. (Transl.). Perhaps 
all that can safely be said is, that 
neither here nor in 1 Thess. iv. 16 does 
the Apostle preclude the conception of 
a resurrection of the just (comp. Luke 
xiv. 14) — possibly gradual (Dorner, p. 
398, note) — prior to that of the gen- 
eral resurrection; that in some pas- 
sages (consider Rom. xi. 12-15) he does 
seem to have looked for a ‘ flowering- 
time’ of the Church prior to the close 
of human history (see Dorner, p. 390, 
398); and that here he distinctly im- 
plies a closing conflict with all the 
powers of evil (comp. Rev. xx. 7, 15) 
immediately prior to the end. That 
the millennial binding of Satan is to be 
dated from the death and resurrection 


304 


ovata auTov. 


1 CORINTHTPAN'S. 


Cuap. XV. 23, 24. 


4 ira TO Tédos, Stay Tapadioe THY PacvdElav 


T® Oc Kat Tatpi, dtay KatTapynon Tacay apynv Kai Tacay 


24. mapadidé] So Westc. and Hort, with apparently preponderating authority 
The decision between this and mapadidoi (Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev.) is critically 


very difficult. 


It is quite possible that mwapadid0? may really be a subjunctive 


(see Moulton in Winer, Gy. § 41. 1. a), and mwapadié@ a superfluous correction. 
On the whole, however, as this form of the subjunctive does not seem certainly 
made out, and as the diplomatic preponderance is perhaps slightly in favor 


of mapadid¢, we adopt this latter reading. 


of our Lord, has been recently urged 
by Medd, Bampton Lectures (1882), 
Note 12, p. 524 sqq.,—but to the 
detriment, as it would seem, of the 
distinctive idea of the millennium : see 
Martensen, Chr. Dogm. § 281, p. 470 
sq. (Transl.). 

24. elra Td Tédos] ‘ Then cometh the 
the end,’ — of all things, of all that God 
has revealed to man; not merely of 
the resurrection (Meyer), nor of the 
last scenes of the world’s history (comp. 
DeWette), but, as the use of the word 
in passages of this nature seems always 
to indicate, of all things in the ordinary 
and inclusive sense of the words; Ta 
mpdyuara &ravra Anperat Tédos’ Chrys. : 
comp, I Pet. iv. 7. The associated 
circumstances connected with this réAos 
are then specified. On the Bible se- 
quence of ‘the last things,’ see Medd, 
Bampton Lectures, note 17, p. 564. 
étay tapadiso «t.d.[ ‘when he shall 
deliver up the kingdom to God and the 
Father, scil. ‘to God who is also 
Father (whether of our Lord Jesus or 
of us Christians, — here, most probably 
the former: comp. Est. 27 Zoc.): tem- 
poral clause specifying that which is 
associated and contemporaneous with 
the réAos,—the present subjunctive, 
as usual, denoting simple futurity re- 
garded as probable or expected (see 
Kiihner, Gr. § 394. 1, (Donalds. Gr. § 
513), and the 8ray the uncertainty of 
the time when that future will come to 
pass. The solemn title 6 @eds kal 


mathp occurs several times in the N.T., 
more commonly with an appended 
genitive (Rom. xv. 16, 2 Cor. i. 3, xi 
31, Gal. i. 4, Eph. i. 3, Col. i. 3, 1 Thess. 
i. 3, iii. 11, 13, I Pet.i. 3), but occasion- 
ally without, as here, Eph. v. 20, James 
i. 27, and (with Kupioy instead of cer), 
iii. 9. On the use of the formula with 
an associated genitive, see notes oz 
Gal. i. 4, and on the best mode of 
translation, the notes to Zyvamnsl. of 
Gal. l.c. The meaning of this mo- 
mentous clause, and even of individual 
words about which there can be no 
possible doubt (e.g. mapadidévar, comp. 
Chrys., Theoph., al.), has been fre- 
quently obscured by dogmatical bias. 
The only expression about which there 
may reasonably be some doubt is Bact 
Aefa. That it is more inclusive than 
the ‘regnum grate,’ in its ordinary ac- 
ceptance, and that it may have some 
reference to the millennial kingdom, is 
probably to be inferred from the wide ho- 
rizon of thisholyrevelation. This king- 
dom the Eternal Son at the last delivers 
up to the Eternal Father, not as though 
He were Himself thereby yupvodmevos 
Tis BactAelas (Theod.), but as obv@povos 
@covd, a sharer in it forevermore (Luke 
i. 33). As Waterland well says: ‘As 
all things descend from the Father by 
the Son, so by the same Son do all 
things ascend up to the Father,’ Oz 
Clarke’s Expos. of Catech. ch. I. 
(Works, Vol. tv. p. 23, ed. 2). As to 
the new earth and Christ’s abiding 


(CHAP. XV. 24, 25. 


reORIN THTEAN's, 


305 


eEovclav Kai Sivamiv. * det yap avtov Bacirevew ayps od On 


mavtas Tovs €xOpovs UO Tovs Todas avTOV.  éxyatos éyOpos 


25. &xpt] So Zisch., Weste. and Hort, on clearly preponderating authority: 


Rec., Lachm., Treg, Rev., &xpts. 


The & is omitted after ob by Lachm., 


Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on greatly preponderating authority: Zec. 


inserts &v. 


presence hereon with His redeemed 
(Medd, 7.c. p. 365 sq.), no inference 
can safely be drawn from this pas- 
sage. étav katapyjoy K.T.A.] 
‘when He shall have done away with, 
or brought to nought, every principality, 
and every authority and power ; ’ fur- 
ther elucidation of the whex, by the 
mention of that which must be prior 
to the 7d mapadiddvar, the aor. subj. as 
contrasted with the present subj. mark- 
ing the act of the 7d katapyety as com- 
pleted before the delivering up of the 
kingdom; comp. Kiihner,' Gr. § 388. 
2.2. The abstract terms apx7f, etoucta, 
dvvauis, are used here, as in Rom. viii. 
ae, Eph. i.\25, i. 16, vi. 13, Col. i, 16, 
al., to designate spiritual and angelical 
beings, the context in each case show- 
ing whether the reference is to good or 
to evil intelligences, or to both. Here 
the context clearly implies that powers 
of evil are alone in the Apostle’s 
thoughts: contrast Eph. i. 21, and see 
notes 27 Joc. On katapyeiy (‘evacuere,’ 
Vulg.; ‘ga-tairan,’ Goth.; ‘abolere,’ 
Copt., comp. notes oz Gal. v. 4. It 
does not here imply so much total 
destruction as absolute subjugation; 
comp. Pearson, Creed, Art. VI. Vol. 1. 
p- 332 (ed. Burton). The word, how- 
ever, even in this single Epistle (where 
_ it occurs nine times), bears plainly dif- 
ferent shades of meaning: see Cremer, 
Werterb. s.v. p. 261 sq. 

25. Set yap Kt.A.] ‘For he must 
r@gn,’ sc. continue to exercise His 
sovereignty, T& Tod BaciAevovTos Toei, 
Phot.: confirmatory elucidation of the 
foregoing statement that the 7d mapad:- 


39 


ddvat x.7.A. will not take place until the 
7) Karapyfjoa «.7.A. has been ac- 
complished, the Se? solemnly pointing 
to the ‘zternum et immutabile Dei 
decretum’ (Estius), as illustrated by 
the words of Messianic prophecy 
(Psalm cx. 1; see Matt xxii. 43), to 
which there is here a probable allusion. 
&xpe od OF K.7.d.] ‘ wrtil He shall have 
put all His enemies under His feet,,— 
without &y, according to the prevailing 
usage of the N. T. in reference to these 
temporal compound particles; comp. 
Winer, Gr. § 41. 3, note. On the dis- 
tinction between such particles with, 
and without &, see Hermann, Partic. 
&, p. 109, and comp. Klotz, Devar. 
Vol. 11. p. 568. The subject of 67 is 
certainly not God, but, as syntactic 
clearness obviously requires, the sub- 
ject of the whole passage, viz. our 
Lord. Estius (who with Beza, al., re- 
fers 67 to @eds, ver. 24) here departs 
from his usual clear and common- 
sense principle of interpretation, led 
apparently by a desire to harmonize 
the present verse with the Psalm, to 
which, however, it is, at the most, only 
an allusion. In cases such as the 
present there is no need whatever for 
reading atrod, the reference to the true 
subject of the verse being natural and 
obvious: see notes oz £Zph. i. 9, and 
the comments of Winer, Gv. § 22. 5. 4. 
On the forms &xpu, &xpus, see 2. § 5. 1. 
é., and on the distinction between &xps 
and méxpt, notes oz 2 Tim. ii.g. The 
doctrinal harmony of this passage with 
Rev. xi. 15 (comp. Luke i. 33), and the 
eternity of the kingdom of Christ is 


806 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. XV. 25-27. 


Katapyettat 6 Oavatos. ™ mdvta yap wrérakev wd Tods Tddas 


> fal 
avuTouvu. 


well set forth by Pearson, Creed, Art. 
vi. Vol. I. p. 334. sq. (ed. Burton). On 
the ‘regnum potentiz,’ and the ‘regnum 
gloriz,’ see Dorner, Chr. Doctr. § 127. 
2, Vol. IV. p. 144 sq. 

26. trxaros éXOpds «.T.A.] ‘As the 
last enemy, Death is brought to nought ;’ 
the present tense bringing up vividly 
the solemn and certain future ; Winer, 
Gr. § 40. 2. a, Kihner, Gr. § 382. 5. 
Death is here personified (Isaiah xxv. 
8, Rev. xx. 14): he is brought to 
nought, by every being over whom his 
power had extended being called up to 
life and to judgment. Death is, at 
last, cast with Hades into the lake of 
fire (Rev. xx. 14), but thither also they 
over whom the dreadful power of 6 
Odvaros 6 SevTepos will exercise its ulti- 
mate energies ; see Pearson, C7ced, Art. 
vi. Vol. I. p. 333 (ed. Burton). Any 
doctrinal deductions from this passage 
in favor of the annihilation of the 
wicked (Plitt, Zvang. Glaubenslehre, 
Vol. 11. p. 414, compare Rothe, Theol. 
Lthik, § 596, Vol. 111. p. 194.sq. ed. 2), 
—a view to which popular modern 
thought is to some extent gravitating, 
—are in the highest degree precarious: 
see on the contrary, the convincing 
comments of Martensen, Chr. Dogm. § 
287, p. 481 (Transl.), and compare 
Dorner, Chr. Dectr. § 154, Vol. Iv. p. 
418 (Transl.). 

27. wavTa yap tréragtev «.7.d.] ‘For 
fe put all things under His feet :’ con- 
firmation of the truth of the preceding 
statement, @oxaros éxOpds .T.A.. by 
the language of Scripture (Psalm viii. 
7), to which the Apostle here assigns 
its fullest and deepest significance, viz. 
that which the lordship of man over 
the created things around him was de- 
signed to foreshadow,—the lordship 
of the Son »>f Man over all things in 


drav Se ely, bts mavta brotéraxtat, SHdrov Ot eKTOS 


their widest amplitude (the emphasis 
obviously rests on mdvra), and so, over 
the last enemy. The subject of 
brératey is thus the subject of the pas- 
sage alluded to, scil. 6 @eds. For the 
similarly antitypical application of the 
words of the Psalm, see Eph. i. 22, 
Heb. ii. 8. Srav Sé elarn] ‘ Bat 
when He hath (thus) said:’ scil. God, 
as speaking by the mouth of the 
Psalmist, the subject of the efrn being 
naturally the same as that of the pre- 
ceding verb: comp. Winer, G7. § 64. 3. 
6. The Apostle is now passing onward 
by means of the continuative and 
slightly antithetical 5é€ (see notes on 
ch. x. 20) to the deeper theme of the 
delivering up of the kingdom to Gcd 
and all that is implied and involved in 
it. In regard of the aor. efrn it ap- 
pears doubtful whether, in this par- 
ticular formula, the full force of the 
future exact (‘quando dixerit,’ Iren. v. 
36, ‘cum dixerit,’ Hil. Psalm. ix. al.; 
see the notes of Sabatier, Bzb/. Sacr. 
Vol. Ill. p. 715) is to be recognized, or 
only that trace of it which is perhaps 
just preserved by the ‘thus’ of the 
above translation. The latter seems 
most in harmony with the context, in 
which the moment of thought seems 
to rest more on the general fact of 
the declaration than on the more 
specific fact of its having been made 
at the réAos. The change to the perf. 
droréraktat, aS marking the enduring 
nature of the dmératis, is clearly de- 
signed. The dé is here objective 
(‘that :’ comp. Copt., Arm.) rather 
than merely recitative, as in Vulg., 
Goth. It is omitted in B; Clarom., 
Vulg., al.. and some Ff, but is ap- 
parently genuine. SAAov Sri] ‘7¢ 
zs manifest that it is so,’ scil. ‘that all 
things are put in subjection ;’ the mayta 


Cuap. XV. 27, 28. 1 CORINTHIANS. 307 


le] iS / > aA wv / 98 [v4 be e n > lel \ 
TOU vTotaEayTos QaVT@® TA TTAVTA. OTQAV O€ uTroTayy aVT@ Ta 
/ , \ t Bask: € eN ¢ a A e / > a 
TTAaVTA, TOTE KAL AVTOS O VLOS UTOTAYNC ETAL To vTroTaéavTe avT@ 


> a 
Ta TavTa, va 7 O Ocds TA TavTa év TaoW. 


28. mdvra év macw] So Lachm., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on prepon- 
derant authority: Rec., Tisch., tr mavta év wmaow. It may be observed, in the 
earlier part of the verse, that the «af before airés is certainly very doubtful. 
The preponderance of authority, external and internal, seems slightly in its 


favor. It is omitted by Zreg., bracketed by Zachm., and Westc. and Hort, but 


brotéraxta: being supplied from the 
preceding member: see examples in 
Kiihner, Gr. § 551. 6. rem., and comp. 
Winer, Gr. § 64. I. a. So apparently 
Syr. [‘notum est quod preeter illum ’], 
Goth., Copt., Aith., in all of which 
d7jAev appears to be taken in its usual 
sense and the ellipsis supplied by the 
auxiliary verb understood. It is, how- 
ever, perfectly possible to take d7Aoy 
éttas a kind of compound adverb 


. (Kihner, Gr. 7. c. and § 548. 3), ‘mani- 


festly,’ ‘obviously,’ and to regard the 
words from érav to the end of the 
verse as forming a suspended protasis, 
resumed and supplied with an apod- 
osis in ver. 28, ‘when, I say, all things 
have etc.’ This latter construction is 
adopted by the Latin interpreter of 
Trenezus (Her. v. 36, ‘scilicet absque 
e€0, qui subjecit’), and apparently by 
Vulg., Clar., Hilary, al., but is frigid 
and forced, and according to Hofmann, 
logtcally involves the reference of 
elrm to Christ,—a reference which, 
though maintained by Hofmann and 
Heinrici, supplies in itself a strong 
argument against the proposed con- 
struction. In the last words of the 
verse the reference is of course to God, 
but the periphrasis makes the reasoning 
more obvious and the tenor of the sen- 
tence more reverent: ‘summam rerum 
omnium ex Psalmo potenter et sapien- 
ter demonstrat apostolus,’ Bengel. 

7a, wavra] ‘ a// things,’ — not apparently 
here or in ver. 28 with any studied 


‘definitely retained by Rec., Zisch., and Rev. 


change of meaning, as compared with 
the mdyta above, the intercalation of 
the article having probably arisen from 
the previous occurrence of the mdyra; 
thd alla,’ Goth. —rightly, but too 
strongly. That there is a difference 
between the two expressions is, how- 
ever, not the less true; mdyta ap- 
parently meaning all things as existing, 
7a mdvta allthings in their totality: 
see Winer, G7. § 18. 8. 

28. 8tav 8& troray K.7.A.] ‘And 
when all things shall have been sub- 
jected unto Him ;’ further statement, 
by means of the continuative and 
slightly antithetical S¢, of the fore- 
going revelation in its most transcen- 
dent and ultimate issues. The de- 
livering up of the kingdom to the 
Eternal Father, of ver. 24, is developed 
into the still more sublime mystery 
which this most blessed verse finally 
discloses. Weare here at the ultimate 
bounds of all human thought. 
tore Kal adrds 6 vids trorayhoerat] 
‘then shall even the Son Himself 
be subjected ;’ the ascensive kal (here 
better evex than also) marking that 
even He to whom all things have 
been placed in subjection will, in His 
own adorable person, be subjected 
(we must not, even with Waterland, 
dare to dilute this passive, or the 
contextual meaning of the word: 
‘Apostolus agit in toto contextu de 
vera proprieque dicta subjectione,’ 
Est.) to the God and Father of all. The 


808 


Else why is there bap- 
tism for the dead, and 
why do we apostles daily face death? 


meaning of this érorayh has been very 
diversely stated and estimated, and, in 
only too many instances, without that 
close regard to the context which must 
be, and ought to be, our only guide. 
That the reference throughout this 
passage is to the Son in His mediato- 
rial aspect (comp. Bull, Prim. Trad. 
VI. 9), and that He is here represented 
‘in gubernando mundo tanquam Patris 
vicarius ’ (Calvin ; consider Matt: xxviii. 
18), is exegetically certain. In this 
aspect and capacity, trorayhoetat, His 
mediatorial work will be concluded ; 
the eternal purposes of the Incarnation 
will have been fulfilled ; in abtompnatpe- 
tos evmelOea (Cyr.-Hieros. Catech. Xv. 
30) He will become subject to Him to 
whom He will have delivered up His 
kingdom, and God, the eternal and tri- 
personal, will become all in all. This 
is the view substantially taken by all 
the early interpreters, and is consistent 
alike with impartial exegesis and cath- 
olic truth: see Waterland oz Clarke’s 
Expos. of Catech. Vol Iv. p. 24 (ed. 2), 
Philippi, A7zrchl. Glaubensl. Part Il. p. 
205 sq. (ed. 2), and for an oration on 
this text, Greg.-Nyss. Ofera, Vol. I. 
p- 6 sq. (Par. 1638), Wa 6 
Ocds k.7.d.] ‘272 order that God may be 
all in all ;’ purpose of the brorayhae- 
Tat K.T.A., the plenary presence and im- 
manence of God, Father, Son, and Spirit 
(comp. Jerome, 27st. 55 [ad Aman- 
dum]; Hilary, de Trin. XI. 40, appears 
to limit the @eds to Christ) in all things 
and in all beings in which, during the 
existence of the mediatorial kingdom, 
that plenary immanence could not be 
fully realized; ‘tunc remoto velo pa- 
lam cernemus Deum in sua majestate 
regnantem; neque amplius media erit 
Christi humanitas, que nos ab ulteriore 
Dei conspectu cohibeat,’ Calvin. On 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cap. XV. 28, 29. 


9°’Emel tu toumoovow of Barrifouevor vrrép 


this the sublimest revelation ever 
vouchsafed to mortal man, we presume 
not to make any further comment. 
We leave the passage in ail the ampli- 
tude of its universality, regarding the 
maow as probably the generalizing neu- 
ter (Winer, Gr. § 27. 5), and as in- 
cluding all persons and all things; 
comp. Eph. i. 23: in Col. iii. 11 the 
the context implies the masculine. 
While, however, it seems most reverent 
thus to leave it, we certainly draw 
from it no inferences in favor of the 
popular universalism which has been 
derived from it: comp. De Wette zz 
loc. God will be all in all, but He will 
be so in a// His attributes, in His jus- 
tice and His righteousness, as well as 
in His mercy and His love. For some 
sober comments on this profound sub- 
ject, see Martensen, Chr. Dogm. § 
283 sqq., p- 474 sqq. (Transl.), Philippi, 
Kirchl. Glaubenst, Part Il. p. 393 sq. 
(hardly, however, fair on Martensen), 
and Dorner, Chr. Doctr. § 154, Vol. Iv. 


p- 419 sqq. (Transl.). 


29-34. further arguments for the 
reality of the resurrection of the dead. 
29. émel tl mowjoovow) ‘ Zlse what 
shall they do?’ scil. if the development 
here set forth be an unreality; the 
retrospective émef (‘ alioquin,’ Vulg.; 
‘aiththdu,’ Goth.; ‘autrement,’ Reuss), 
as usual, referring not to any more 
remote portion of the argument (e.g. 
ver. 20, Or ver. 23, d&mapxi Xpiords 
k.7.A.), but to the clauses immediately 
preceding, setting forth, as they do, 
the mighty sequences and issues of the 
primal truth. The hypothesis involved 
in the particle is to be drawn from the 
context: see Buttm. Gr. WV. 7. p. 308, 
where this use of the particle (Germ. 
‘da sonst’) is illustrated by examples. 


Cuap. XV. 29. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


309 


A A > \ > > f, / \ / 
TOV vexp@v ; el GAwWS VEKpOl OvK éyElpovTa, Ti Kal BamriCovTaL 


On the derivation (émt, sc. ém) roire, 
and ei), see Curtius, Zzym, p. 265 (ed. 
4), and on the distinction between this 
particle and ydp, notes on ch. v. 4: 
comp. also notes on ch. xiv. 16. The 
future morhoovow has here a generalizing 
character. — what will they do?’ ‘what 
are they to have recourse to?’ the 
proper sense of futurity being still 
conserved in the latent reference to 
cases that might conceivably hereafter 
come before them: see Kiihner, G7. 
§ 387. 2. and comp. Kriiger, Sprachi. 
§ 53. 7- 1, Winer, Gv. § 4o. 6, and 
notes on ch. viii. 8. 

ot Bamrifdpevor drep Tov vexpav] ‘who 
are baptized for the dead, scil. ‘receive 
baptism on their behalf;’ the article 
with the present participle being here 
probably substantival, and pointing to 
a class which adopted the practice; 
comp. Winer, Gr § 45. 7. Of these 
obscure and difficult words the inter- 
pretations are very numerous. Two 
only, however, appear to deserve 
serious consideration: (a) that of the 
Geeek expositors, according to which 
Tay vexpay is to be regarded as really 
practically equivalent to ris avarrdcews 
Tov vekpa@y (‘ut reviviscant ex mortuis,’ 
fEth.); and baptism as the manifesta- 
tion of belief in the doctrine ; ém ror» 
BarriCn, TH Tov vexpod c@paros avacrdcet 
morevwv br. ovéts wever vexpov, Chrys. ; 
(2) that of Ambrosiaster, Anselm, and 
the great majority of modern inter- 
preters, according to which tar vexpav 
is to be referred to dead unbaptized 
believers, for whose assumed spiritual 
benefit living believers were baptized 
as proxies. This custom certainly ex- 
isted at an early period (Tertull. ae 
Resurr. cap. 48, adv. Marc. v. 10: 
comp. Epiph. Her. Xxvill. 7), and may 
have been practised in some instances 
by Corinthian converts, or at least 


have been known to them as a prac- 
tice which was occasionally resorted to. 
Of these two interpretations the first 
puts a strain upon the preposition, of 
which no similar instance exists in St. 
Paul’s Epp., or indeed in the whole of 
the New Testament. That the simple 
trép can be forced into meaning ‘in 
expectation of the resurrection,’ as re- 
garded possible by some of the de- 
fenders of (a), is really inconceivable. 
It is possible that the whole expression 
brtp Tév vexpovy might mean ‘in the 
matter of the dead,’ ‘in regard of the 
dead’ (comp. 2 Cor. i. 6, and perhaps 
2 Thess. ii. I, but see notes 27 Joc.), 
but to elicit from this what is desired, 
is to postulate an ellipsis (ris avacrd- 
oews) which, in a doctrinal passage like 
the present, could hardly have been 
left to the ordinary hearer or reader to 
supply. We decide therefore in favor 
of (4), not, however, without recogniz- 
ing that the use of the apparently gen- 
eric article T@v vexp@y is not what we 
should here have expected (see Winer, 
Gr. § 19. 1; it may, however, mean 
‘the dead ’ in whom the of Barri(duevor 
are interested), and that the reference 
to a custom which, z/ it then existed, 
must have been condemned, creates a 


‘real difficulty. It is to be observed, 


however, that the Apostle in no way 
connects himself or his converts with 
these Bamri(ouevo. (contrast this with 
the jets in the next member of the 
verse), but simply alludes to them as 
practising what he refers to; ‘non 
factum illorum probat, sed fidem fixam 
in resurrectione ostendit,’ Ambrosiaster 
iz loc. Of the various other interpre- 
tations, the majority eitner endeavor 
to extort from the words a meaning 
which the Greek will not bear (‘ jamjam 
morituri,’ Estius; ‘devenientes ad 


mortuos,’ Bengel), or assign to them 


810 


TUG ORIN I tear 


CHAP. XV. 29-31. 


fras\ Bi 20 -/ Ny Cry cm § , a ? 31 
UTEP AVTWY ; TL KAL NMELS KLYOUVEVOMEVY TTAGAVY WPAV ; Kal 


Hmépav aroOvncka, vn Tiv bweTépay Kavynow, ddedpol, iv Exo 


29. a’taév] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly 
preponderating authority: Rec. Trav vexpav. 
31. &deApol] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Wieste. and ort, on very clearly 


preponderating authority: Aec. omits. 


some forms of private interpretation 
which are obviously inconsistent either 
with the tenor of the passage or the 
principles of a sober exegesis. For a 
collection of these interpretations, see 
Wolf, Curae Philol. et Crit. (in toc.), 
and the long note of Meyer zz doc. 

el dws K.7.d.] ‘Lf the dead are not 
raised at all ;’ hypothetical clause cor- 
responding to the latent hypothesis 
involved in the preceding ézei,— here 
expressed, there understood. All the 
best editors now rightly connect with 
what follows, rather than with what 
precedes; so apparently the Greek ex- 
positors: comp. Theodoret 77 Joc. On 
the use of éAws (‘omnino,’ Vulg.), see 
notes on ch. v. I tL kal Bamri- 
fovra: imp adrav] ‘why are they verily 
baptized for them?’ the emphatic kat 
standing in a kind of correlation to the 
preceding éaws, and qualifying probably 
the whole sentence, thus marking the 
profitless character of the whole pro- 
ceeding: see Baumlein, Partzk. p. 152. 

30. thal hpets K7.A.] ‘ Why do we 
also stand in jeopardy every hour?’ the 
kat here being associated closely with 
the jets, and marking the case of the 
Apostle and the early preachers of the 
Gospel as a further illustrative argu- 
ment: ef uh jv avdoraois, tivos evexev 
éxwdvvetouev, Theoph. 

31. Kad’ hepa drobvicKe, vi K.T.A.] 
‘I die daily ; yea, Laffirm it, by the 
glorying in you ;’ expansion of the pre- 
ceding thought in reference to the 
Apostle’s own case, and confirmed by 
a strong asseveration. The damoévhokw 
obviously refers to the dangers which 


the Apostle as an émi@avdrios (see ch. 
iv. 9) encountered daily; not only was 
he prepared to die (Polycarp, Fragnfent 
11), but daily was he in circumstances 
that menaced life; comp. 2 Cor. iv. II, 
Rom. viii. 36: Odimvexds euavtdy <is 
mpovrrous Oavdrous éxdidwui, Theodoret ; 
comp. Rom. viii. 36, 2 Cor. iv. 11, xi. 
23. The asseverative particle vf only 
occurs in this passage in the N. T., but 
is very common in Attic Greek. It is 
always associated with an accusative, 
some asseverating verb (Syr., Arm. 
insert ‘juro’) of the nature of duvume 
(regularly associated in such expres- 
sions with the accusative) being sup- 
posed to be understood; see Kiihner, 
Gr. § 409. 4. For its etymology (prob- 
ably from the pronominal stem za) and 
affinities, see Donalds. Crat. § 189, 
Curtius, Etym. No. 437, p. 283 sq. 
(ed. 2). viv tperépav Kadxynow] 
‘the glorying in you,’ z.c. ‘the glorying 
about you,’ Thy Suerépay mpoxoriy ep 
kavxGua: Theoph.,—the possessive 
pronoun being here used objectively, 
as in ch. xi. 24 (Luke xxii. 19) : see ex- 
amples in Kihner, Gr. § 454. 2. II, 
and comp. Winer, Gr. § 22. 7. The 
Apostle appeals to the conversion of 
the Corinthians (thy mlorw adrar, 
Theod.), and the kxavxnots which he 
has and holds within him on this very 
account, as a plain testimony to the 
truth of the @dvaros Kabnuepwds 
(Theoph.). The év Xpior@ «.7.A marks, 
as usually, the blessed sphere in which 
he possesses and holds the kavxnots; 
see notes o2 Gal. ii. 17, and on Eph. ii. 
6,iv.1. The reading of Steph. 3, quere- 


Cuap. XV. 31, 32. 


1 CORINTHIANS: 


311 


év Xpict@ “Inood tO Kupip jyov. ™ ei cata avOpwrov éOnpio- 


7, ? ’ f / X ” © 2 \ > > / 
paynoa ev Edéoe, ri poor TO OpeNos ; EL VEKPOL OVK eyEipovTat, 


pay, has (if we except A) practically no 
support 

32. kata dvOpwrov] ‘after the man- 
ner of men ;’ under the ordinary cir- 
cumstances in which men @npiomaxovow 
(‘humanitus, humano auctoramento, 
spe vite presentis duntaxat, Bengel: 
comp. Copt.‘in humanitate’), and so, 
not under any higher principle; ‘non 
divino aliquo impulsu, neque in Deum 
respiciens, sed vel gloria vel temeritate 
actus, ceterisve ejusmodi causis ad- 
ductus quarum studio homines in ista 
pericula precipites ruunt.’ Beza. The 
clause is put prominently forward, and 
designed to enhance the force of the 
question: ‘if I thus, and under no 
higher principle, went through all these 
dangers, what is the profit that I get?’ 
tlva exw Tovde Tod Kivdivov KapTdr ; 
Theod. Of the various interpretations 
this clause has received, the above is 
the only one that appears to be in ac- 
cordance with the language and the 
context. On the formula kata &yOpe- 
mov (which must always be explained 
from the context) see references in 
notes on ch. iii. 3, eOnpropd- 
Xyoa ev “Hdécw] ‘was a fighter with 
wild beasts at Ephesus ;’ scarcely, ‘ad 
bestias pugnavi,’ Vulg., or ‘ cum bestiis 
pugnavi,’ Irenzeus (v. 13), but simply, 
in accordance with the meaning of 
compound words of this nature, ‘acted 
the part of a @ypioudxos ;’ comp. Diod., 
Fist. V1. 43, mpds &s [rv AedvTwy K.7.A. 
&yéAas] dvaryKdCovra: Onpiomaxety Satp 
Opeuudtav: Artemed. Onezrocr. I. 54, 
Onpiomaxety mévntt a&yabdy. That the 
word is not to be taken in a literal 
sense, whether in reference to being 
cast to wild beasts in the amphitheatre 
(‘ projectus sum feris,’ Syr. ; see Theod., 
and comp. Ignat. Rom. cap. 5), or hav- 
ing fought with them as an armed 


gladiator (‘bestiarius’), but is to be 
taken in a metaphorical sense (Td mpds 
Tovs “lovdalovs cxeiv, CEcum.; comp. 
Tertull. de Resurr. cap. 48), seems now 
generally maintained by the best inter- 
preters, it being highly improbable that 
such a signal danger would have been 
left unnoticed by St. Luke, especially 
if the Roman citizenship of the Apostle 
had failed to protect him. What, 
however, incident or circumstances are 
here referred to is by no means clear. 
Theophylact and others refer to the 
uproar mentioned Acts xix. 23 sqq.; 
but it is doubtful whether the Epistle 
was not prior to it (contrast ch. xvi. 8, 
9, and Acts xx. 1), and also whether 
the Apostle was then in any special 
and personal danger. We regard, 
then, the reference as either to some 
unrecorded incident, or to the state of 
antagonism with @npla, in the person 
of human opponents, into which the 
Apostle was placed by his own earnest- 
ness and devotion. On this use of the 
aorist, see Kiihner, Gr. § 386. 5. 

tl pou rd Sdedos] ‘ What is the profit to 
me?’ the profit answering to such a 
perilous condition; the expression ti 
Td dpeAos OCCurs James ii. 14, 16. 

el vexpol ov« éye(povra is rightly re- 
ferred by Chrys., Theoph., and many 
modern editors and expositors to what 
follows rather than to what precedes. 
There is an obvious difficulty in asso- 
ciating a second conditional member 
toa short sentence that commences 
with one; and there is a clear force in 
the isolated interrogative (comp. ver. 
29) which speaks strongly for the 
punctuation adopted in the text; so 
Lachm., Tisch. Treg, Rev. Westc. and 
Hfort, On the ei ov, see notes on ch. 
vii. 9, and for a sermon on this text (in 
two parts), Bp. Hall, Works, Vol. v. p. 


312 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


CHAP. XV. 33, 34- 


PDayowev kai Tiwpev, avpiov yap amtoOvncKopev. * wn TrAavaCOeE* 


pOeipovow On ypnora ouiriar xaxat. * éxvippate Sikaiws Kal 


33 xpnord] So Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort. The form xphaé (Lachm., 
fec.) really rests on scarcely any authority, but was adopted to maintain a 


metrical form of the citation. 


290 sqq. (Oxf. 1837). dayopev 
k.t.X.] The words are a citation from 
the Septuagint version of Isa. xxii. 13, 
and, as Chrysostom notices, are prob- 
ably introduced in the language of the 
prophet as thus marking with deeper 
solemnity the ethical result of disbelief 
in the resurrection. Similar sentiments 
are expressed in Wisdom ii. I sqq.; 
see also two sermons on these words 
by Bp. Taylor, Works, Vol. v. p. 217 
sqq- (ed. Heber). 

33+ pr TAavac Ge] ‘Be not deceived ;’ 
‘do not be led astray into these utterly 
immoral, though possibly natural, atti- 
tudes of thought.’ The form rAavacde 
is not middle (‘ne errate,’ Beza, Ben- 
gel), but, as apparently always in this 
formula, passive ‘nolite seduci,’ Vulg., 
Arm.) : see notes on ch. vi. 9. 
Pbel(povew k.7.A.] ‘evil companionships 
corrupt good dispositions :’ justification 
of the foregoing warning: but whether 
in the form of a citation from Menan- 
der (Tertull. ad Uxor.1. 8, Jerome zz 
Gal. iv., Tit. i.; Socrates, Hist. Eccl. 
III. 16, ascribes it to Euripides), or, 
more probably (on account of the non- 
metrical xpnord), as a current proverb 
-which Menander had also made use of 
(he certainly alluded to another proverb 
in the same play; see Atlian, Ast. Azz. 
XII. 10), cannot positively be decided. 
The words occur in the play bearing 
the title of Thais: see Meineke, /ragm. 
Comic. Grec. Vol. Iv. p. 132. The fa- 
miliar word 760s (‘ indoles, morum que- 
dam proprietas,’ Quintil. 7st. VI. 2) 
is notfound elsewhere in the N.T.; on 
its meaning, see Harless, Chr. Ethics, 
§ 2. 2, p.6 sq.(Transl.). In the plural, 


48m commonly signify ‘mores,’ the 
canon of Phrynicus being, xpnotds 
TH HON wAnOvyTiKGS PvdAdTTov: of yap 
Sdkiywor Evik@s aol xpnaotds Td 780s, 
but where the reference is to several 
persons the rule does not appear to 
apply: see Rutherford, Phryzicus, p. 
468. In the present case the meaning 
‘ dispositions,’ ‘characters,’ seems best 
to harmonize with the context ; comp. 
Syr. ‘mentes benignas ;’” Copt., ‘ corda 
bona:’ so also apparently Aith. The 
term 6ptAtar must clearly not be re- 
stricted to ‘colloquia,’ Vulg., Goth., 
Copt., or ‘narrationes,’ Syr. It points 
rather to communications in the more 
general form of intercourse (‘com- 
mercia,’ Beza) or companionship ; scil. 
‘congressus mali,’ Tertull. (ad Uxor. 
1.8). The Apostle uses the words as 
warning his converts against inter- 
course with men who denied such a 
fundamental truth as that of the resur- 
rection; comp. ch. v. 9, and on the 
influence of companionships, see Rothe, 
Theol. Eth. § 376, Vol. 1. p. 361 sq., § 
1132, Vol. Vv. p. 226 (ed. 2). On the 
term Xpyords, as marking a certain 
sweetness (comp. Syr.) of character as 
well as goodness, comp. notes oz Gad. 
Ver22s 

34. exviare Stxalws] ‘Awake to 
soberness righteously ;’ &s mpos ueBvovtas 
kal pavouevous, Chrys. Vivid appeal 
(observe the aorist) to men who had 
become besotted with false speculation 
and error. The Apostle bids them at 
once éxvfpew, rise out of their spiritu- 
ally drunken sleep (‘de ebriis dicitur, 
qui in somno demum_ sunt sobrii,’ 
Steph. 7hesaur. s. v.; comp. I Sam. xxv. 


CHaP. XV. 34, 35: 


#4) dpaptdvete* ayvwoiay yap 
TpoTnv viv NAO. 


If it be asked, How are 
the dead raised? nature, 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


313 


Ocod twes Exovow* pos év- 


%"AdAa €pet tis Ids éeyelpovtas ot vekpoi, 


animate and inanimate, gives the answer; and, still more, Scripture. 


34. AaAG] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev. Westc. and Hort, on very clearly 


preponderating authority: Mec., Aéyw. 


35. addd] So Zisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort, on apparently sufficient au- 
thority, due regard being had to the prevailing usage in the older manuscripts: 


Lachm., Ret. Ur. 


37), and that Sixatws,—in a rightful 
manner, with the righteous resolve of 
breaking with the past, and of not 
continuing (comp. Winer, G7. § 43. 2) in 
the sinfulness which is the fatal associate 
of unbelief ; évred0ev avtois Ta omepuara 
Ths amorias, Chrys. In the verb 
éxvqpew (comp. avavhpew, 2 Tim. ii. 26) 
the two ideas of awakening, and that, 
out of the stupor of drunkenness, are 
both to be recognized : comp. Lync. ap. 
Athen. Iv. p. 130 B, KkapnBapoiytes bd 
THs méOns...mavres ekevipowev. Con- 
sequently ‘evigilate,’ Vulg., Copt. 
(comp. Syr., ‘excitate corda vestra’), 
on the one side, and ‘sobrii estote,’ 
Clarom., on the other, are each 
scarcely sufficient. In Goth. and Arm. 
the idea is more of resipiscence, and 
coming back to good sense: comp. 
Plutarch, Demosth. cap. 20, where it is 
said of Philip (after the battle of 
Cheeronea, éxvippas 5é kad 7d wéyebos Tod 
TepioTavTos avToy ayavos év v@ AaBar. 
On the derivation, see the notes oz 2 
Tim. iv. 5. ayveclav yap 
K.t-A.] ‘for some have an ignorance of 
God ;’ have it and hold it,— the ex- 
pression éyvwolay €xew being studiously 
chosen as stronger than @yvoeiv or ov 
eidévat. The doubts and disbelief of 
these tes (see notes on ver. 12) were 
due, if not wholly, yet in great meas- 
ure, to their utter want of knowledge 
of God whether in regard of His 
nature, His power (Chrysost.; com- 
pare Matt. xxii. 29), or His justice 
40 


=a 


(Theod.). Agnosticism was the root 
of the evil. 

Tpos évtpomty K.T.r.] ‘Z speak thus Zo 
you to move you to shame:’ ‘ut pudore 
afficiamini loquor,’ Aith.; the mpds in- 
dicating the ethical direction and pur- 
pose of the AaAety (comp. notes on ch. 
x. II, and oz Col. iv. 5), and the 
dative tuiv, as in ch. vi. 9 (contrast ch. 
X. II, where the construction is differ- 
ent), being connected with the verb, 
according to the prevailing usage in St. 
Paul’s Epp. Where the preposition is 
used, as in i Thess. ii. 2, the expression 
is designedly more formal and signifi- 
cant: compare Winer, Gr. § 31. 5. 
For the Apostle to say that some 
among them had an é@yvwoiay Ocod, was 
mpos evtpomny; indeed opddpa atta 
Kabqparo, Chrys. 


35-49. The manner of the resurrec- 
tion, and the nature of the resurrection- 
body: illustrative and confirmatory 
analogies. 35. AdAG épet tis] 
‘But some one will say :’ introduction, 
by means of the words of a supposed 
objection (comp. Baumlein, Partzk. p. 
13 sq.), to the second portion of the 
great argument,— the manner of the 
resurrection, and, more particularly, 
the nature of the future body. The 
fact of the resurrection was doubted 
because the manner of it, and particu- 
larly the mwodrns of the resurrection- 
body, seemed inconceivable and inex- 
plicable: ri@nox dvd tas eramophoes, Tod 


814 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


CHAP. XV. 35-37. 


mroip 5&€ cwpats épyovtar; “ddpwv, av 6 orreipets ov Sworrol- 


eitas €av on atro0avn: * Kat 


0 omeipels, OV TO HUA TO YyEevnoO- 


36. &ppwy] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very greatly 


preponderating authority: 2ec., &ppov. 


Tpomov Tis avacTacews, Kal THs ToLdTNTOS 
Tov cwudtwy, Chrys.; comp. Theod. 
wolw St odpat. tpxovrar] ‘and with 
what kind of body do they come/—1@ 
GmrodwAdte ) Erépw tii; Chrys.; the dé 
reiterating, in a more precise and par- 
ticular form, the more general difficulty 
expressed in the first question: see 
Kiihner, Gr. § 531. 4. a, comp. Klotz, 
Devaerius, Vol. i. p. 362. In the 
épxovru the idea is that of an entry 
into the realm of the living. Ac- 
cording to Bengel ‘ potius vexzre quam 
vedive dicuntur, propter summam illam 
novitatem.’ The present here is not 
used in a temporal, so much as a 
logical sense—‘do they come,’ ac- 
cording to the teaching set forth ; the 
matter is, so to say, here drought on 
the scene: see Winer, Gr. § 40. 2. a, 
Kiihner, Gr. § 382. 6. 

36. &ppev] ‘ Foolish one!’ sudden 
exclamation, called out by the nature 
of the difficulty involved in the second 
question; the assumption of the ob- 
jector being that the risen body must 
be numerically identical with the 
buried body. On this use of the nomi- 
native, in which an ellipse of the 
auxiliary is to be assumed, and its dis- 
tinction from a vocative, see Kiihner, 
Gr. § 356, Winer, Gr. § 29, 2. 
oi 8 omelpes] ‘what thou sowest ;’ the 
ot being, as its position shows, dis- 
tinctly emphatic, and bringing the 
argument into the very sphere of 
what might be the act of the ob- 
jector,—‘in the case of any seed that 
you the objector sow, how fares it?’ 
Bengel (‘¢ute, homuncio;’ compare 
Chrys.) seems here to place the od pro- 
leptically in contrast with the 6 @eds 


(ver. 38); the above explanation, how- 
ever, seems more simple; ‘disce ex 
rebus, tibi per experientiam notis,’ 
Estius. od {worroretrar] ‘zs 
not guickened, ‘has not the principle 
of life within it called out into opera- 
tive energy; passive; mdAw rod @cod 
Thy Sivau mapadauBdver, Chrys. The 
word is chosen, like the a&ro6drn below, 
to keep up the close analogy of the 
circumstances of the sown seed and 
the buried body: see Chrys. zz doc. 
The casting in of the seed answers to 
the burial of the body (tpdérov twa 
tdow Kadd’treis, Phot.) ; the dmrobave of 
the seed, to the passage of the body 
into corruption: ‘putrefactio rei, licet 
inanimate, mors quedam ejus est,’ 
Estius ; see John xii. 24. 

37. Kal S omelpes] ‘and that which 
thou sowest ;’ reiteration of the words 
just preceding to keep the attention 
fixed to this $ omeipets, and to what is 
to-be said of it. The grammatical 
structure is, however, not carried 
through, but changed for the sake of 
still keeping the oveipeis (in lieu of a 
more structurally correct, but less vivid, 
form of words) in what follows. For 
examples of this very intelligible break 
in construction (Matt. xii. 36, Luke 
Xxi. 39, 1 John ii. 24, 27, al.), see Wi- 
ner, Gr. § 63.2. d. Meyer cites Matt. 
vii. 24, but the true reading is duowOh- 
oetat. In what follows, the céua 7d 
yevnodpmevoy (‘guod futurum est, 
non quid, sed quale monstrare,’ Est.) 
is the analogue of the resurrection- 
body. The objector’s argument was, 
erepov cua mire, Kal [according to 
the Apostle’s teaching] érepoy capa 
avicrata. mas oy avdoracis by etn; 


Cuar. XV. 37-39. 1 CORINTHIANS. 815 


MEVOV OTTELPELS, GANA YupVoY KOKKOV Ei TUYOL aiTOU 7} TLVOS TOV 
Aovrrav+ 86 S€ Oeds Sidwow aite cdpwa Kalas 70érycev, kat 
e / lal / Ae} Lal 89 > lal \ e >’ \ 
EKAOT@ TOV oTTEpuaToV idiov Hua. od Taca cape } adTi 
cap&, Gra AAAH pEv avEpwrrwv, GAN Sé capE KTNVOV, GAR 


38. didwow aitgG] So Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort on very 


clearly preponderating authority: Lec., ait@ Sidwor. 


The same critical 


editions omit 7é before %.ov, on authority still more distinct: 2ec. inserts 74. 
39. BAAN mev avOpdtwv] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev. Westc. and Hort, 


on vastly preponderating authority: Rec. HAAn mev capt avOpérwr. 


The order 


KTnVav ... TTHVaV ... ix@twv is adopted by all the above edd., on greatly prepon- 


derating authority: Rec. ntnvav ... ixObwr ... wrnvar. 


The above also add 


odpt after the second &AAn dé, on nearly the same authority: Rec. omits odpé. 


Chrys. Nature gives an illustrative 
answer; wimrey pev eis yqv TO cOua 
old twa Kékkov ovk oftws avaoTnodpuevor, 
Cyril, ap. Cramer, Caz.). yup- 
vov KéKkov K.T.A.] ‘a waked grain, it 
may chance, of wheat, or of some one of 
the other seeds ;’ a grain not yet clothed 
with the body which shall be; comp. 
2 Cor. v. 3. On the ef réxor (Syr. omits, 
interpolating, however, ‘ aut hordei’), 
see notes on ch. xiv. 9. The natural 
supplement to Aomay is omepudtwy 
(Syr., Copt., Arm.), as obviously sug- 
gested by the context and.also ex- 
pressed in the following verse, éxdorw 
TOY OTEpUaTwr. 

38. 6 St Ocds K.7.A.] ‘but God giveth 
it a body according as it pleased Him ;’ 
the ever recurring divine act contrasted 
with the human sowing; the kaddas 
HOeEAnoev pointing back to the time 
when at his bidding the earth brought 
forth the ‘herb yielding seed after his 
kind’ (Gen. i. 12), and when each seed 
and the body into which it was to de- 
velop were bound by creative wisdom 
in enduring organic unity. Kal 
éxdorw K.T.r.[ ‘and (further) to each 
seed.a body of its own ;’ the kal having 
here its fullestforce and adding a further 
detail to what has been already specified. 
On this use of kat, see notes on ch. iii. 
5, and on Phil. iv. 12. The conclusion 
from the whole is irresistible, and 


briefly but clearly expressed by Severian 
(Cramer, Catez); &pa 676 nénnw Sedw- 
KOS Thy oTepuaTiKhy Siva, ZwKev Kad 
TOS NMETEPOLS THMaTL THY Tis dvacTdoews 
ioxdv. 

39.. 0d TaGTa cape K.t.A.] ‘Al flesh is 
not the same flesh :’ ‘hoc universaliter 
negat,’ Bengel; the negative being put 
forward strongly and emphatically ; 
comp. notes oz Gad. ii. 16, where, how- 
ever, the structure is more distinctly 
Hebraistic. In this and the following 
verses the Apostle states the broad 
and natural fact, viz. the variety of 
organization manifested by practically 
the same general substance, whether 
in the animate or inanimate world, as 
illustrating the diversity that must be 
expected to exist between the same 
body when in its earthly state, and 
when in its spiritual state: ‘quicquid 
diversitatis cernimus in quaque specie 
quoddam est resurrectionis przlu- 
dium,’ Calvin. To make ov aoa the 
predicate on account of a supposed 
difficulty in harmonizing this passage 
with 2 Cor. v. 4 (Edwards) is struc- 
turally improbable and _ exegetically 
harsh. The Apostle is simply diluting 
the force of a commonplace objection 
(that the resurrection body is ex con- 
cesso different from the buried body) 
by some illustrations from the natural 
world. KTyVvav] ‘of catdle ;’ not 


316 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


CHAP. XV. 39-41. 


dé cap& mrnvaev, GdAn Se iyOvov. ” Kal cdpata €vroupavia, 


\ vl 3 iy 3 ys ( i \ e a > / f 
Kal CwpaTa eTiyela* adda ETEPA meV 1 TOV EéTroupaviwy, d0~a, 


érépa Se 7 tov érvyeiwv. *addrn Soka jAlov, Kal dX bS6£a 


necessarily ‘jumentorum’ (compare 
Clarom.; and see Luke x. 34, Acts 
Xxiil. 24), but simply ‘ pecorum’ (Vulg.; 
see Rev. xviii. 13),— ‘ of cattle,’ whether 
for use as ‘jumenta,’ or for any other 
purpose. The wider rendering ‘ani- 
malium’ Arm., comp. Syr., A&th.), 
‘quadrupedes omnes’ (Bengel), does 
not seem lexically exact. Had this 
been intended, the word rertpdmoda 
(Rom. i. 23) would more likely have 
been used. 

40. Kal oopata érovpavia] ‘ Bodies 
also heavenly there are,’ ze. ‘bodies 
which are in, or belong to, the odpavol, 
comp. Copt. Aith. What oduata are 
here referred to is not perfectly clear. 
The somewhat restricted use of the 
word (cdéuarta), especially in this pas- 
sage, does not seem in harmony with 
that expansion of it which would be 
involved in the expression ‘heavenly 
bodies,’ in the sense of sun, moon, and 
-stars (Severian, Bengel, Hofmann), but 
would appear rather to limit our con- 
ception to bodily organizations found 
in the ovpavots; just as oduata émiyera 
point to organizations found upon the 
earth. We thus seem referred to an- 
gels, and to all the dwellers év rots 
émoupavlois (Eph. iii. 10, vi. 12); there 
being nothing in Scripture to preclude 
our thus assigning to them odéuara, 
but, on the contrary, many allusions 
that seem to warrant it. The early 
writers are by no means agreed in de- 
nying oéuara to the holy angels; see 
Suicer, Zhesaur. Vol. 1. pp. 36, 37- The 
patristic expositors (with the exception 
of Severian) refer the terms to the 
dikaios on the one hand, and the 
Gpaprwdof on the other, but with very 
little probability: the distinctions here 


under consideration are physical rather 
than ethical. GAAG érépa k.T.A.] 
‘howbeit the glory of the heavenly is of 
one kind, and the glory of the earthly is 
of another kind ;’ the stronger GAAd 
(‘aliud jam hoc esse, de quo sumus 
dicturi,’ Klotz, Devar. Vol. 11. p. 2) 
introducing the statement of the diver- 
sity of the 8éf. On the distinction 
between @repos (‘non tantum alium sed 
diversum significat,’ Tittm. Syzon. p. 
155), see notes oz Gal. i. 6. The 
glory that surrounds the one is widely 
different. from that which surrounds 
the other. 

41. GAn Sdéa «.7.d.] ‘ There is one 
glory of the sun ;’ transition, suggested 
by the last comment, to the distinctive 
manifestations of another, and very 
different, class of émovpdua, the 
Apostle’s object throughout being to 
press home the distinctions that every- 
where exist, and so, the reasonableness 
of the truth that the nature of the 
resurrection-body is widely different 
from that of the caua ris Tarevdcews 
quay (Phil. iii. 21). aorip yap 
K.t.X.] ‘for star differs from star in 
glory.’ The studiously chosen plural 
aorépwy, as marking distinctions be- 
tween star and star, is further eluci- 
dated by the statement that there is a 
diapopd in the Seta which any observant 
eye can recognize, That diapéper is 
here ‘ differt’’ (Vulg., Clarom.), and not 
‘preestat’ (Syr., Copt., Arm., A&th.), 
seems clear from the whole tenor of 
the present context, in which the prom- 
inent idea is the difference of the 
various bodies to which the Apostle is 
here alluding, not the excellence of any 
one over another. This further idea 
comes out later. The prep. év is used 


Cuap. XV. 41-43. 


wEANVES, Kal GAAN SOfa acTépwv* 
VES, n P 


év Od&n. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


2 ottws Kal 7) avdoTacis TMV VEKpav. 


317 


aoTip yap actépos Suadéper 


oTeipeTat ev 


POopa, éyeiperar ev apOapcias *ameiperas ev atipia, éyeiperas 


with ddfa (it might have been omitted) 
as marking more distinctly the par- 
ticular element in which the d:agopd is 
to be recognized. Estius, following 
the patristic expositors, refers this 
clause to the ‘magna diversitas gloriz’ 
that there will be among the saints 
hereafter. Such a ‘diversitas’ there 
may be, but it is not here alluded to. 
42. ottws Kal «.7.A.] ‘So also zs the 
resurrection of the dead ;’ thus,—as 
regards the difference between the 
body that now is and the resurrection 
body; the «ai marking the correspon- 
dence of the resurrection of the dead, 
in the particular just specified, with 
the tenor of the illustrations in the six 
preceding verses. On this use of kat, 
see notes oz 2 Thess. ii. 11. 
otrelperar ev pOopa k.t.A.] ‘ Zt 2s sown in 
corruption ; it is raised in incorruption.’ 
The 3rd person singular passive may 
be here used impersonally (‘the sowing 
is év PO0p4, the raising up is ev apOapata : 
comp. Winer, Gr. § 58. 9. 4), but is 
more naturally to be connected with 
a latent nominative g@ua (compare 
Theoph.), more clearly to be traced in 
ver. 44, but suggested by the whole 
tenor of the passage. The sowing 
here referred to, as Chrys. rightly ob- 
serves, is not Thy yéveow quay Thy év 
uAtpa, but thy raphy thy ev tH yh, and 
the word is studiously chosen (‘ verbum 
amcenissimum pro sefzlturd,’ Bengel) 
as more closely harmonizing with the 
leading illustration, ver. 36 sq. The 
particular expression, however, év 
Oop (‘in the state or sphere,’ as it 
were, of p@opd) seems specially chosen 
so as in some measure (see notes on 
the following verse) to look backward, 
and to refer, not only and exclusively 


to the epoch of the dissolution of the 
cua, but also to the whole prior state 
to which this d:¢Avots is the conclusion. 
The same sort of allusion to the whole 
past as well as to the concluding scene 
seems to be maintained in the two 
clauses that follow. 

43. é€v arusla] 627 dishonor ;’ not 
simply with reference to the ‘nuditas’ 
(Bengel) and undeveloped state (ver. 
37), but to the state of p@opd above 
specified. This atmuta has marked 
many of the aspects of life, and now 
finally culminates in the 7d GkadAés 
(Cyril) connected with sepulture, and, 
as De Quincey has termed it, ‘the dis- 
honors of the grave’: ti yap vexpod 
&tiuwtepov ; Theoph. év 
doGevelq] ‘272 weakness,’ scil. ina power- 
less state: tl yap Tod ixdpos exelvou 2 
THs Kdvews aobevéotepoy; Theod. As 
power is naturally associated with life, 
so powerlessness is equally appropri- 
ately connected with the state of death 
and the body that has passed into it. 
The hopeless weakness of the dead 
(vexdwr auevnva xdpnva, Homer, Od. x. 
521) wasa thought that often presented 
itself ; comp. Isaiah xiv. 10, Psalm cxv. 
17, al. It may be here observed that 
the prevailing use of the term to mark 
the weakness of man while living, 
rather than when dead, has led many 
expositors to fall back upon a refer- 
ence of omeipera: in each clause to the 
beginning, rather than to the close, of 
man’s existence, and to explain pOopd 
and atiulaaccordingly. It seems, how- 
ever, exegetically impossible here to 
dissociate the omeipera: from the idea 
of burial (consider ver. 37): we retain 
it therefore, and see in each clause a 
primary reference to the grave; though, 


318 


év 50&n* 


peTar o@pa r~puyiKov, éyelpeTas coma TvevpwaTiKoy. 
capa ~uyiKov, éoTw Kal TvEevpaTLKOY. 


44. ef oT... ZoTw kal mvevpatidy] 


preponderating authority: Rec., fom... 


from the form of the expressions év 
pope «.7.A., asecondary and, as it were, 
retrospective allusion to the whole 
prior state may be intended to be in- 
cluded. év Suvdper] ‘272 power,’ 
z.é., ‘ina state or condition of power.’ 
This state (rd edaOerés, Cyril), ‘in quo 
perfectus sit vigor omnium poten- 
tiarum atque membrorum’ (Estius), is 
what we almost instinctively associate 
with the resurrection body. According 
to Aquinas it is the ‘dos agilitatis.’ 

44. oapa wWuxukdv] ‘a natural 
(psychical) body;’ ‘corpus animale,’ 
Vulg. ; a body in which the Wuxf is the 
predominating potency (rd tm tijs 
Wux7s KuBepyeuevov, Theod.), and by 
which the ux comes into relation 
with the sensuous and material: see 
notes son eh chs 4.) her Apostle 
having specified some of the character- 
istic and sharply contrasted qualities 
of the sown body and the raised body, 
now gathers up in two comprehensive 
definitions the fundamental qualitative 
difference. The doubters asked rotw 
odmatt Epxovra; the answer is given in 
this and the following clause in the 
most clear and generic form. On the 
capability of death in the case of a 
body as described in this verse, see 
Miiller, Doctrine of Sin, IV. 2, Vol. 
Il. p. 323 sq. (Transl.). 
copa tvevpatikdy] ‘a spiritual body ;’ 
a body in which the mvedua of man, 
the element in which the Holy Spirit 
vouchsafes to operate (Rom. viii. 16), 
is the predominating influence; 7d id 
Tov mvevuatos oikovotmevov, Theod. There 
is here no reference to the quasi-phys- 
ical nature of the body (koupérepoy kat 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


CuHap. XV. 43-45. 


t > ) Q ’ a diag 2 5 s 44 / 
OTTELPETAL EV AT EVELA, EVYELPETAL EV OVVALEL* OTTEl~ 


DS par 
€l €oTLWW 
45 ef \ , 

OUTWS Kal YeypaTrTaL 


So all the five edd., with very greatly 


kal €o7t OGma TvevpaTiKor. 


Aemrérepov, Chrys. 2): the reference is 
simply to the predominating element. 
On the term mvevpatixds, see notes on 
ch. ii. 14, and on the mvedua in man, 
Destiny of Creature, Serm. v., and 
references in notes oz Phil. i. 27, and 
on Xi Thessnv. 23. el tori 
k.t.A.] ‘ Lf there exists a natural body, 
there exists also a spiritual (body) :’ the 
existence of the one forms a logical 
presumption for the existence of the 
other. The emphasis, as the position 
of the word indicates, rests in each 
clause on the éotw: if there does 
plainly exist a body in which, as all 
experience shows, the puxf predomi- 
nates, and if, as has already been shown 
by various analogies, we must expect 
a fundamental difference between this 
present body and 7d capa 7d yevyodue- 
voy, the existence of a body in which 
the contrasted principle, the mvedua, 
will be the predominating influence 
seems to follow as a necessary infer- 
ence. The inference the Apostle pro- 
ceeds to confirm by Scripture. 

45. ovTws Kal yéypamrat] ‘ Zhzzs also 
zt 2s written ;’ in accordance with the 
tenor of the above inference, — the kat 
further marking the correspondence be- 
tween the inferential statements of 
ver. 44 with the citation azd the clause 
that follows it: comp. notes on ver. 
42. The passage cited is from Gen. ii. 
7 (LXX), kad éyévero &vOpwros cis Wuxhv 
(@oav, and the 6 mparos and *Addu being 
inserted to make its contrast with the 
clause appended by the Apostle more 
clear and appreciable. That the second 
member is a part of any citation, or in 
any way intended to be regarded as 


Cuap. XV. 45, 46. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


319 


"Eyévero 6 rp&rt0s dvOpwrros Addy eis puynv cav 6 &axaros 


*Adap eis mredwa Sworroodv. % 


such, cannot possibly be maintained. 
The Scriptural yéyparra: terminates 
with (@cay, but, as expanded by the 
Apostle, suggests and justifies what 
follows, the ‘first Adam’ suggesting 
the reference to the ‘last Adam,’ and 
the yuxhy (doar calling out the doubly 
antithetical mvedua (worotodv, see Theod: 
iz loc. On the is of ‘destination,’ 
here pressed into purely Hebraistic 
service, see Winer, Gr. § 32. 4. d. 

Wuxi Cocay] ‘a Living soul ;’ not ‘ ani- 
mal vivens,’ Beza, but ‘anima vivens,’ 
Vulg., —a living soul-endued being; 
the zeshdma of God (Gen. ii. 7) having 
converted the as yet dead clay into a 
living and breathing individual, having 
a rational soul and organized body. 
That man did not then receive merely 
this principle of life, but did also re- 
ceive the grace of the Spirit, is well 
set forth by Bull, in his dissertation 
‘On the State of Man before the Fall,’ 
Works, Vol. 11, p. 90 sqq. (Oxf. 1827) ; 
comp. Martensen, Chr. Dogm. § 78, p. 
152 (Transl.): this truth, however, is 
not referred to in the present pas- 
sage. 6 toxartos “Abdp] ‘the 
last Adam, ‘the last first-man’ (Hof- 
mann), the antitypical head of the new 
creation, — Christ: see Rom. v. 14. 
The Apostle here speaks of Christ as 
the ‘last ’ rather than the ‘second’ 
Adam (comp. ver. 47), so as to preserve 
in each particular the sharpest form of 
antithesis. He was truly érxaros; ‘ post 
eum nemo alius in alterutro genere 
princeps,’ Est.: comp. Rev. i. 8 [the 
more apposite words in ver. 11, Rec., 
are not genuine]. mvedpa Lwo- 
movtv] ‘a guickéning or life-giving 
Spirit ;’ not merely (@v but woman : 
the essential characteristic of the 
Spirit is to impart life; &pa rod mvedua- 
tos T) {woroeiv, Chrys. The (wh here 


> b > lal \ ‘ 
GX ov TPWTOV TO TVEvMATLKOV 


referred to must be not generally 4 (wh 
% aidvios (Theod.), but, more particu- 
larly, in accordance with the whole 
context, the resurrection-life : comp. 
John v. 21, 28, 20, Phil. iii: 21. The 
real difficulty connected with the 
clause is in regard of the epoch when 
Christ thus became a mvedua (womoioidr. 
The reference to the incarnation (Se- 
verian, referring to Matt. i. 20) is 
plausible; but, on the whole, Estius 
seems right in rejecting it in favor of 
the epoch of the resurrection. It was 
through and by the resurrection that 
Christ éyévero cis mvedua Cworotdr. 
When He breathed on His disciples 
and said AdBere Tvedua “Ayiov (John 
XX. 22; contrast ch. vii. 39), we feel that 
the transition had begun. After the 
resurrection the blessed body of the 
Lord appears to have received new 
properties and powers (comp. Luke 
xxiv. 16, 31, John xx. 19) and even 
glories [consider Matt. xxviii. 17, mpo- 
aextvnoay), and to have passed in holy 
mystery more and more into the mvev- 
patixdv, until, at the ascension, the 
now wholly spiritual body, —‘ the last 
particle of earthliness left to this 
world’s gravitation’ (Smyth), — rose 
upward to the right hand of God 
(Mark xvi. 19): see Dorner, Chr. 
Doctr. § 126, Vol. Iv. p. 139 (Transl.), 
and Newman Smyth, Old Faiths, ch. 
VIII. p. 358 sqq. 

46. GAN od Tp@Tov K.T.A.] ‘Howdbeit 
the spiritual ts not first but the natural.’ 
statement of the general principle 
which dominates the whole, the aad 
introducing, in the form of a general 
contrast with the foregoing details, 
the broad statement, and breaking off 
further reference to the particulars of 
ver. 45: see the excellent remarks, on 
this particle, of Baumlein, Partzk. § 5 


320 


> \ \ f 4 * re 
GAA TO WuyXLKOV, ETELTA TO TVEVMATLKOV. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


CHAP. XV. 46-48. 


47 9 mp@tos avOpwiros 


> lel ” f € 8 / ” @ > > lel 48 i ¢ ”- , 
ex yhSs xoiKos, 0 SevTEpos AVOpwrros €E ovpavod. * oios 0 Yoikos, 


47. 6 debrepos kvOpwros ef ovpuvov] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev. Weste. 
and /fort, on very clearly preponderating authority: Rec. inserts 6 Kudpios after 


&vOpwros. 


sqq., and § 8, p. 15. The primary idea 
of the particle (‘aliud jam hoc esse, de 
quo sumus dicturi,’ Klotz) is fully 
preserved, but the contrast involved is 
less sharply marked than in the more 
ordinary uses of the particle: comp. 
Kiihner, Gr. § 535. 8. The 7d 
mvevpatiucy is thus, in harmony with 
the generalizing character of the verse, 
simply substantival, and with no refer- 
ence to an understood oéua: see VWi- 
ner, Gr. § 64. 5. On the profound 
questions connected with man’s de- 
velopment in reference to creative de- 
sign, see Rothe, Zheol. Ethik, § 480, 
Vol. III. p. 47 sq. (ed. 2). 

47. © mparos «.t.A.] Illustration of 
the foregoing general principle, mpé- 
tos and devrepos being not merely 
enumerative, but standing in distinct 
contrast. The éoxaros of ver. 45 is 
not adopted here, as it would be less 
in harmony with the ée:ra of verse 46 
than the more natural, though here 
equally contrasted, devrepos. 
ek yiis Xoikds] ‘of carth, earthy ;’ the 
ék yiis marking whence man was de- 
rived, and the xoikdés (Gen. ii. 7, xodv 
AaBwv amd THs yjs) the matter or sub- 
stance (‘pulvereus,’ Syr., ‘muldeins,’ 
Goth.) the ‘fusilis terra’ (Steph. 
Thesaur. s. V. xovs), of which he was 
made. The omission of the article 
with yf and with ovpayds (neither with- 
out precedent, especially with preposi- 
tions, Winer, Gr. § 19. I) is due per- 
haps to the desire to keep the two 
substantives in sharp contrast,—‘ earth’ 
and ‘heaven’), and, by abbreviating, 
practically to make the clauses more 
adjectival in character: comp. Ecclus. 


xl. 11, mdvta boa amd vis, eis yi 
avaorpéepet. € odpavod] ‘ of 
heaven ;’ ‘e coelo,’ Beza, rather than 
‘de ceelo, Vulg.,—as the clause cor- 
responds to the é« yfs above, and 
marks alike the divine origin (‘utpote 
natus ex Deo,’ Estius) and the heavenly 
nature of the dedrepos %vOpwros. The 
term ovpavés is thus here used, not so 
much in a local as in a qualitative 
sense, placing the celestial nature of 
the second Adam (perdpotos dAos Kat 
ovpdvios, Phot.), in contrast with the 
earthly origin and earthy substance of 
the first. That our blessed Lord had 
a o@ua xoikdy like other men (see 
Miller, Doctr. of Six Iv. 2, Vol. Il. p. 
326, Transl.) is indisputable, but that 
in His blessed earthly body there was 
ever a concealed heavenly glory (Matt. 
xvii. 2 sq., Mark ix. 2 sq.; see Miller, 
2. ¢. p. 329), which after His resurrec- 
tion became fully disclosed (see notes 
on ver. 44) is equally indisputable. 
The contrast here, however, between 
the first man and the Second Man is 
simply broad and general (see Calvin 
zz loc.), and prepares for the contrasts 
that follow. 

48. olos 6 Xoikds k.t.X.] ‘As ts the 
earthy, such also are they that are 
earthy ;’ application of the foregoing 
to the contrast between the nature and 
condition of the present body and that 
of the resurrection body; ‘as is the 
earthy first man, in regard of his bodily 
substance, so also are his descendants, 
in regard of their bodily substance.’ 
Both are alike xotkoi; both have alike 
a body formed out of dust, and 
(‘ratione suz materiz,’ Estius) re- 


Cuap. XV. 48-49. 1 CORINTHIANS. 391 


Lal - nr t 
TOLOUTOL Kai O14 YyoiKo’, Kal olos Oo émoupdyios, TovodTOL Kal ot 
Jas! ‘ ? U a ” Ea 
€mroupaviot* Kat Kalas éepopécapev THY ElKdva TOD oiKOv, 
a / 
hopécopev Kat THY ElKOVa TOV émaupaviou. 


49. popésouey] So Rec., Rev. (with margin). The reading here presents very 
great difficulty. It is impossible to deny that the subj. popéowuev (Lachm., 
Tisch., Treg. Westc. and Hort) is supported by very greatly preponderating 
authority. At the same time it seems equally impossible to deny that not 
only the context, and the whole tenor of the argument (throughout of a physi- 
ological rather than of an ethical character), are in favor of the future, but 
further, that the perceptive or hortative subjunctive is here singularly out of 
place and unlooked for. In this great difficulty, and this conflict between 
external authority and internal probability, we seem reluctantly forced to believe 
that we have here a very early instance of itacism, and that we may be justified 
in reading the future, with B; a few mss.; Arm., Aith.; some little patristic 
testimony, and a distinct statement of Theodoret. A somewhat similar differ- 
ence of reading occurs in James iv. 15, but there the balance of external autho- 


tity is very different. 


solvable into dust again. The ‘potuit 
non mori’ of the first Adam and his 
descendants (see Dorner, Christian 
Doctr. § 39. 4, Vol. 11. p. 71, Transl.), 
and the ‘natural immortality which the 
tree of life would have supplied to him 
and to them if they had remained in 
innocence (see Bp. Bull’s discourse ‘On 
the State of Man before the Fall,’ 
Engl. Theol. Works, p. 446 sq. (Oxford, 
1844) ; comp. Miiller, Doctr. of Sin, Iv. 
2, Vol. Il. p. 325, Transl.), is not here 
touched upon: the Apostle is here 
simply speaking of the body in regard 
of its substance and material. 

Kal olos 6 érroupdvios K.T.A.] ‘and as is 
the heavenly such also are they that are 
heavenly :’ ‘as is the ascended Lord, 
He that sits év rots éwoupaviois (Eph. ii. 
20), so also are they that, raised by 
the power of His resurrection, become 
the citizens of the ‘IepovoaAtu émovpdvios 
(Heb. xii. 22), and sit with Him éy rots 


émovpaviots, not in spirit only (comp., 


Eph. ii. 6), but in local actuality.’ The 
spiritual body is to be atuuoppos te 
oauatt ths Sdks avtod (Phil. iii. 20). 
Having thus stated the general prin- 
ciple,—the correlation, in regard of 


41 


On this latter passage, see Winer, Gr. § 41. 4. 4, 


corporeal nature, of the 6 xoixés and 
the of xoixof and of the 6 émovpdvios and 
the of émovpdvio1,— the Apostle pro- 
ceeds to apply the statement to him- 
self and to his readers. 

49. Kal Kabads épopécapev K.7.A.] ‘And 
as we bore the image of the earthy ;’ 
the aorist referring to the past mortal 
life, which is contemplated, as it were, 
in retrospect, and at the epoch of the 
transition from the earthy to the 
heavenly: see Winer, Gr. § 40. 5. a, 
note. In this and many similar cases 
the idiom of our language suggests the 
use either of a present or perfect: the 
shade of thought, however, which the 
Greek aorist carries with it, is in each 
case obscured : see Kiihner, Gr. § 386. 
14, and notes oz Phil. i. 29. The 
meaning of gopeiy as distinguished 
from that of oépew.—the latter de- 
noting ‘actionem simplicem et transi- 
toriam,’ the former, ‘ actionis ejusdem 
continuationem,’—is commented on, 
and illustrated by, Lobeck, Phryn. p. 
585, and is fully maintained in the 
N. T.: see Matt. xi. 8, John xix. 5, 
Rom. xiii. 4, James ii. 3. We might 
here not inappropriately translate, 


322 


Mortal must become 
immortal, and corrupt- 
ible, incorruptible. The 
victory over death will 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


CHAP. XV. 49-51. 


© Tobdro Sé dyus, adeAdol, dtr capE Kal 
aiwa Bacthelav Ocod KAnpovoyhoas ov Svuva- 


then, thanks be to God, be complete: so be steadfast. 


50. divara] So Zisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort, on external authority which, 
with the internal probability of a grammatical correction, apparently preponder- 


ates: Rec., Lachm., Rev., dSivavrat. 


‘wore the image ’ (compare 2 Cor. v. 2 
sq.): so Syr., 4th., Arm. The 
eikav Tod xoiKod (‘ imago terreni Adam,’ 
Est.), as the context clearly indicates, 
is the odua Wuxindy ; the eixdv rod 
émovpaviou (‘imago hominis ccelestis, 
scilicet Christi,’ Est.), the c@ua mvev- 
Marikdy : Comp. ver. 44. ; 

50-58. Zhe necessity of the final 
change, and the triumph of final victory: 
concluding exhortation. 

50. Todro 8€ bye] ‘ Wow this J say:’ 
transition to the concluding portion of 
the great address; the verse serving 
alike to enhance and substantiate the 
statement of ver. 49, and to prepare 
for the revelation of ver. 51 sq. The 
Tovro must thus be referred to what 
follows, and the 67 taken, not aitioAo- 
yix@s (Beza), but in its ordinary expo- 
nential sense. Reuss regards it as 
simply the 8r: recttativum, and omits it 
in translation. The tenor of the sen- 
tence is, however, in favor of the ex- 
pository sense: comp. ch. vii. 29, and 
see notes 27 Joc. oapé kal aipa] 
‘flesh and blood:’ scil. man’s mortal 
nature; odpt, capt ovoa, ov KAnpovomel. 
kal aiua, aiua bv, ov KAnpovouet, Severian. 
On the expression odpt ka) aiua, see 
notes oz Ga/.i.16. The Apostle pre- 
cludes all such conceptions by the 
strong ov 5évara. In the ancient creeds 
(as in our Baptismal Service) the regu- 
lar form of expression was ‘the resur- 
rection of the flesh’ (see Bp. Pearson, 
Creed, Art. XI.): by the expression, 
however, nothing further was intended 
than a profession of belief in the essen- 


tial identity of the risen body with the 
former body, and, probably, a protest 
against the early teaching of the school 
of Origen : see Delitzsch, Bib/. Psychol. 
VII. I, p. 541 (Transl.). The specula- 
tion of Miiller (Doctr. of Sin, Iv. 2, 
Vol. II. p. 327) as to the possibility of 
the future body consisting, not of flesh 
and blood, but of ‘ flesh and bone,’ like 
to the body of the risen Lord (Luke 
Xxiv. 39), is suggestive, but precarious. 
On the nature of the resurrection body, 
see Dorner, Chr. Doctr. § 153. Ul. 4, 
Vol. Iv. p. 413 sq. (Transl.), and on the 
three views that have been entertained 
on the difficult question of identity, 
see Herzog, Real.-Encycl. Art. ‘ Auf- 
erstehung,’ Vol. I. p. 765 sq. 

ob8é H pOopa K.t.d.] ‘ard that cov, upiion 
doth not inherit incorruption ;’ this 
second member being, in each particu- 
lar, in exegetical parallelism with the 
former member, and equally with it de- 
pendent on the foregoing 87. Meyer 
rightly calls attention here to the 
rhetorical force of the abstracts; not 
7) pOaprév (ver. 53) and 7d &pOaprtor, 
but 7 pOepd and 4 apOapota. On the 
use of the ethical present xAnpovoue?, 
as marking the fixed and enduring 
principles of God’s ordering of the 
world, see notes on ch. v. 13, and ox 
Eph. v. 5. The future xAnpovouhoe is 
adopted by Zachm. on good, but in- 
sufficient authority. 

51. 80d puornpiov «.t.d.] ‘ Behold, I 
tell you a mystery :’ revelation, solemnly 
and emphatically introduced, of the 
full meaning of the declarations in the 
preceding verse,—and, in what fol- 


Te G.O ROE NYE Eel AUN Si 


Cuap. XV. 51, 52. 323 


Tat, ovde ) POopa tTHv apOapciay Krnypovopet. *| iSod pvartrp.ov 


buiv Neyo: Tavtes ov KoLunOnooueOa, Tavtes 5é adraynoOMEOa, 


2 ey atouw, év pity op0adpod, év TH éoyaTn cddTUyyL* cad- 


51. mdévres ov] The reading in this important passage presents some diffi- 
culties. The best critical opinions, however, seem now clearly settling down 
in favor of the text. ec. adds mév after mdvres with good critical authority: 
the preponderance, however, both of external evidence and internal considera- 
tions is clearly in favor of the text. So Zisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort; 
Lachm. places wév in brackets. In what follows, Rec., Tisch., Treg., Rev., 
Westc. and Hort adopt ov Koiunoducda, mavtes 5& GAAarynodueda, on clearly pre- 
ponderating authority, and, it may be added in consonance with St. Paul’s 
teaching, both in this chapter and in t Thess. iv. 13 sqq.: Lachm., ob mdytes 5€ 


adAarynodpueba. 


lows, concluding and conclusive an- 
swer to the great question of ver. 35: 
Wuxaywye? aitovs, TA Kexpuupeva dnAar, 
Theod. On the meaning of uvorhpiov 
(‘something not cognizable by, or not 
wholly comprehensible by, unassisted 
human reason’), comp. notes oz Eph. 
Wai 32: TAYTES OD KOLULNT pea] 
‘We shall not all of us sleep:’ the 
mavtes being emphatic in each member 
(‘all of us will not sleep, but all of us 
will be changed’), and the od being 
connected, naturally and closely, with 
the verb. There is thus no trajection 
of the negative (Chrys., Theoph., ov 
mdyvtes), but a double declaration in 
regard of the mdvres, necessitated by 
the difficulty that would have been 
felt, if it had simply been said that a// 
would be changed at the zrapovota (the 
primary and essential substance of the 
svorhpiov), and no recognition taken of 
the possibility that some might be then 
alive. The ‘all of us’ is thus to be 
understood as including Christians 
generally (contrast Winer, Gr. § 61. 5, 
where, though the writer declares in 
favor of the narrower view, he seems 
to feel the difficulty of it; see Prof. 
Moulton’s note), and not, with Meyer, 
to be restricted to those alive at the 
Lord’s coming, the qmets of (Gvres of 
meotrerméuevor Of I Thess. iv. 17. The 


See the valuable note of Westc. and Hort, Vol. 1. p. 115 sq. 


Apostle might have expressed the 
same sentiment by converting the first 
member into a concessive clause, — 
‘we shall all be changed, even though 
we shall not all pass through death,’ 
but the force of the passage would 
have been impaired, and the substance 
of the pvorhpiov, which certainly in- 
cludes the subordinate as well as the 
primary truth (mdyres dAAaynodpueda) 
less sharply presented to the reader. 
The distinct emphasis resting on the 
mavres alleviates, if it does not wholly 
remove, the overpressed grammatical 
difficulty: comp. Buttmann, Gramm. 
LV. T. p. 106, note. 

52. €v arépw] ‘77 a moment:’ the 
neuter &touoy being here applied to 
time, which is regarded as ‘ tam breve 
ut insecabile sit,’ Steph. Zhesaur. s. v. 
Vol. I. p. 2390: compare, or rather con- 
trast, Aristot. Phys. VIII. 8. 24, ovx ofdv 
Te eis arduous xpdvous Biaipetoda Toy 
xpévov. The neuter &kapes (‘too short 
to be cut’) is similarly used in classical 
and in later Greek; comp. Aristoph. 
Plut. 244, ev akapel xpdvov, and év axape? 
alone in Lucian. Both this term and 
the év pry dpOadpod (‘in ictu oculi,’ 
Vulg., ‘in momentaneo oculi motu,’ 
Tertull. — whether of pupil, as Theod., 
or of eyelid, as, more probably, Chrys., 
Theoph.) are appended to the pre- 


324 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


CHAP. XV. 52, 53- 


mice. yap, Kal oi veKpol eyepOncovtar apOaprot, Kal Tpets addra- 


ynoopela. Set yap 70 POaptov Todt évdvcacbat apOapciay 


ceding clause to mark the instan- 
taneous nature of the peraoxnuatiouds, 
and to obviate any conception of a 
passage through death being regarded 
as a physical necessity in the process 
of transformation : see Delitzsch, 276/. 
Psychol. Vil. 1. p. 538 (Transl.), and 
comp. notes oz 1 Thess. iv. 17. 

The term porj is supported by some 
authority, and may have given rise to 
the ‘ictu’ (rather than ‘nictu’) of 
Vulg.: see Jerome, 2. ad Minerv. et 
Alex. (Opp. Vol. I. p. 902, ed. Vallars). 
év Tq éoXaty oddmyy] ‘at che last 
trump ;’ the év here passing, by a very 
intelligible transition, from a local into 
a temporal sense, ‘zz the sounding of 
the last trumpet,’ ze. ‘at the time when 
the sound is heard,’ éray 7 TeAevTula 
odAmyt 7xhon, Theod.: see Winer, Gr. 
§ 48, év, 2. There are no sufficient 
grounds for supposing that there is 
here any reference to the seventh 
Apocalyptic trumpet (Rev. xi. 15), or 
to the seventh and last trumpet which 
Rabbinical tradition has connected with 
the end of the world and, especially, 
with the resurrection of the dead 
(Eisenmeng. Zztd. Judenth., Vol. I. p. 
929), the reference being plainly to that 
odAmvyyos wy} to which the Lord him- 
self alludes (Matt. xxiv. 31), and which 
the Apostle had already specified in 
his First Epistle to the Thessalonians 
(ch. iv. 16; see notes zz Joc.). This 
odAmvyt the Apostle here terms éoxdTn, 
not with reference to any preceding 
series (0AAa) gwval cadtlyywv ylyvovrat, 
Severian), but as connected with the 
close of this aiév and the last scene of 
this world’s history; ‘que finem szculi 
diemque novissimum adesse nuntiat,’ 
Est. Whether it is to be regarded as 
announcing the Lord’s presence (comp. 
Exod. xix. 16), or as awakening the 


dead and summoning them and the 
living to the last great cvvaywyh (comp. 
Num. x. 2), cannot be decided: the 
latter seems contextually most prob- 
able; the odAmyt gives 1d rijs dvaord- 
cews stvOnua, Cyril ap. Cramer, Caz. 
codtioe yap] ‘for the trumpet will 
sound ;’ confirmation of the preceding 
words, as by a known and reiterated 
truth. The verb is here used im- 
personally, 6 cadmyxrhs being easily 
and naturally supplied; compare the 
similar use of éxnpvée scil. 6 ehpvt (Xen, 
Anab. U1. 4. 36), éohunve (2d. 111. 4. 4) 
and also of éodAmiyée (¢b. I. 2. 17), and 
see Winer, Gr. § 58. 9, Kiihner, Gr. § 
352. b. According to Phrynicus, s. v. 
cadmiyxThs, the correct form would be 
oadmiyter: see Rutherford, Phryz. p. 
279, and Winer, Gr. § 15, s. v. caAmiCo. 
Kal oi vexpol K.T.A.] ‘ard the dead will 
be raised incorruptible, and we (the 
living) shall be changed ;’ clause, ap- 
pended by the adjunctive kai, solemnly 
specifying the immediate sequel ; comp. 
Luke xix. 43, Heb. viii. 8. On this 
use of xaf, see Winer, Gr. § 53. 3, and 
comp. Baumlein, Partiz. p. 146. The 
objection founded on this verse, to the 
interpretation of ver. 51, viz. that the 
GAAaynoducba is taken in a different 
meaning in the two verses (Winer, Gr. 
§ 61. 5), is really superficial. The 
essence of the change (that corruption 
should put on incorruption), whether 
in the case of those who have died 
before the Lord’s mapovola or those 
who may be alive at that blessed epoch, 
remains absolutely the same. On the 
use of the ques as simply indicating 
that the Apostle naturally groups him- 
self with the class to which he then 
belonged, see notes oz 1 Thess. iv. 15. 
53: Set yap Td pOaprov K.7.A.] ‘For 
this corruptible (SentiK@s, Theoph. ; the 


Cuap. XV. 53, 54- 1 CORINTHIANS. 


325 


Kat To Ovntov tovto évdvcacOa. alavaciav. * dtav Sé TO 


\ a >] 4 > / \ \ \ an 3 tA 
POaprov todto évdvontar apGapciay Kat ro Ovntov TovTo évdv- 
ontat abavaciay, TOTE yevnoeTaL 6 AOYoS O yeypaupévos Kare- 


54. dray d¢ «.7.A.] The reading issomewhat doubtful. The words 7d péaprdv 
TovTo éviventa apOapotay are omitted by Westc. and Hort (with margin), but are 
retained by Rec., Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev. (with margin), on apparently slightly 
preponderating authority The decision is difficult, as the external authorities 
are very nearly balanced, and the internal arguments (probability of conforma- 
tion on the one side, and at least the possibility of accidental omission by a 
transcriber on the other) almost similarly in equipoise. The contextual proba- 
bility of a formal reiteration of the whole of the preceding statement added to 
the apparently slight diplomatic preponderance, seems fairly to turn the scale. 


Apostle’s thoughts probably glancing 
to his own mortal frame), must put on 
incorruption ;’ confirmation of the 
preceding aGAAaynodueba, the det de- 
pending upon the principle enunciated 
in ver. 50, capt kal aiua Bactdelay cod 
KAnpovoujoa ov divara. The évivcacbat 
'(aor.: it was no lingering process; 
comp. Kiihner, Gr. § 389. 7. d) is very 
fully illustrated in 2 Cor. v. 2 sqq. 
The ap@apota is regarded as something 
that clothes the embodied personality, 
all that was corruptible having disap- 
peared and passed away. Theophylact 
draws a distinction between the @@aprdv 
and the @vnrév, on the ground that the 
former refers to ra &fuxa (including in 
it, however, twa apbxots éokdTa, ofov 
tpixes kab dvuxes), the latter only to 
7a éuuxa. It seems more natural to 
regard the two terms as practically 
synonymous (‘repetit idem aliis verbis,’ 
Est.), the former being the more inclu- 
sive and general; each term, as the 
context clearly implies, can only be 
logically referred to of (éyTes ; see Hof- 
mann 77 loc. 

54. TéTe yevtoerar 6 Adyos] ‘then 
shall come to pass the saying ;’ the 
tére marking emphatically what will 
corresponsively follow, and the yerqoe- 
tat implying that the Adyos will come, 
_as it were, upon the scene, and will be 
realized. The Aédyos is the solemn 


utterance (comp. John xii. 38, x. 25) 
further specified as 6 yeypaupeévos, the 
word, not merely as spoken, but as 
traced on the prophetic scroll; morod- 
Tat TaUTa ypapiKH uaptupia, Theoph. 

Kareré0n «.t.d.] ‘death hath 
swallowed up unto victory ;’ scil. ‘so 
as to issue in, or result in, victory ;’ 
the eis vikos being associated with the 
verb by a kind of constructio pregnans, 
and representing that which was the 
resultant issue of the 7d katameiv: see 
Winer, Gr. § 66. 1. d. The Apostle, 
in these words, gives a free rendering 
of the original text (Kata thy ‘EBpaiwy 
éxdoow, Cyril) of Isaiah (ch. xxv. 8), 
converting what is expressed actively 
in the Hebrew (‘ He [Jehovah] hath 
swallowed up death,’ Rev. ; ‘ He shall 
annihilate death,’ Cheyne) into the 
passive, and rendering the mysd (‘for 
ever,’ Rev., Cheyne; so also the Tar- 
gum and Symmachus), in accordance 
with the rendering of the LXX in 
other passages (2 Sam. ii. 26, Job xxxvi. 
7, al.), as if connected with the Aramaic 


been 


mMzp (‘overcame ;’ see Furst, Zex.s.v.), | 
The — 


and so as equivalent to eis vikos. 
original meaning of the Adyos is thus 
fully preserved, viz.’ that, at the last, 
death will be victoriously annihilated 
by God. This the Apostle regards as 
it were completed (Chrys., dpav 73n és 
yeyernuéva; so Theodoret, Theoph.) ; 


tah 


326 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. XV. 54-56. 


4,0 c @ / ° Lal 55 lal 6 / \ Lal lal 
7009 O UVAVATOS ELS VLKOS. TOU OOU, UaVATE, TO VLIKOS; TOL 


0a \ / 56 \ be / a fa} "h ete / 
aoovu, UAaVAaTE, TO KEVTPOD ; TO € KEVTPOV TOV VAVATOV 7) apapTia, 


55. vikos—kévtpov] So, as to order, Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and 
fort, on clearly preponderating authority; conformation to the order of the 
LXX not appearing here to be probable, owing to the free nature of the ref- 


erence: Lec., KévTpovy — vikos. 


In the second clause @avare is adopted by the 


same critical authorities, on greatly preponderating authority: Rec., d5n. 


hence the appropriateness of the aor. 
karewd0n. The rendering of the LXX 
is Katémev 5 Odvatos icxvoas; that of 
Theodotion the same rendering as 
that of the Apostle. The form vikos is 
late, and apparently of Alexandrian 
origin; comp. Matt. xii. 20, and see 
Steph. Zhesaur. s. v. Vol. V. p. 1552 
(ed. Hase). 

55. Tov cov, Odvare, k.t.A.] ‘ Where, 
O death, is thy victory? Where, O 
death, is thy sting?’ There is some 
little doubt whether we are to regard 
these words as a citation from Hosea 
(ch. xiii. 14) slightly changed from the 
LXX, and so definitely a part of the 
6 Adyos 6 yeypaumeévos, or as a free use 
on the Apostle’s part of the words of 
the prophet, as they appropriately rise 
in his memory. The latter seems 
most in harmony with the triumphant 
tenor of the passage. After having 
transported himself, as it were, to the 
time when the great utterance of the 
prophet Isaiah will be fully realized, 
the Apostle at once breaks forth (oiovel 
maavi(wv, Theod.) into words of exul- 
tation and victory suggested by another 
prophetic passage of similar force and 
pertinence. The rendering of the 
LXX is, rod 4 Sikn cov [the Can of 
the original may mean ‘thy words,’ 
though much more probably ‘thy 
plagues:’ see Keil 7 Joc.], Odvare, mod 
7d Kévtpoy gov, 4d; freely changed by 
the Apostle in accordance with the 
tenor of the context: vixos being re- 
peated from the preceding words, and 
dn changed into @dvare,—as death, 


and not Hades, was that with which 
the Apostle’s present teaching was 
specially concerned. On the use of 
mov as marking complete exclusion 
from all association with the subject 
(otxeTat kal &mroAwAe Kal HpdvicTaL TarTeE- 
A@s, Chrys.), comp. ch. i. 20, Rom. iii. 
27. In regard of the exact 
meaning of xévtpov (Heb. ap ‘ pesti- 
lence,’ ‘ destruction ’) it can scarcely be 
doubted that death is here represented 
as having ‘a sting’ (‘aculeus,’ Iren., 
Tertull., Cypr.) like that of a scorpion 
(see Rev. ix. 10), with which he strikes 
and slays. The full force of the 
image is brought out in the following 
verse. 

56. Td 8& Kévrpov K.t.d.] ‘Vow the 
sting of death is sin ;’ semi-parenthetic 
explanation of what this xéytpov of 
death is, what it is that death uses as 
the chief érAov in his work of destruc- 
tion; it is from sin, and in sin, that 
death has his true kevtpov; ‘si pecca- 
tum non esset, mors nil posset,’ Bengel. 
As the scorpion has all his ioxds in his 
sting, so in sin has death all his really 
malefic power; see Theoph. zz Joc. 
On the close connection between death 
and sin, see Dorner. Chr. Doctr. § 87. 
2, Wol. 111. p. 116 sq. (Transl.). 

% St Sivapis K.7.A.] ‘and the power of 
sin is the law.’ This statement has its 
full explanation in Rom. viii. 7 sq.; 
compare also Rom. v. 13, cited by 
Theodoret. The law, as Dorner clearly 
states the case, is the objective ground 
of sin’s possibility; it becomes the 
power of sin by revealing God’s wrath 


Cuap. XV. 56-58. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


327 


% Se Sivas THs duaptias 6 vopos* *7@ dé Oem yapis TH dvdovTe 


a lal na na ’ lo) al 
Auiv to viKcos dia Tod Kupiov nuov "Incod Xpictod. ®” Nate, 


Tal U 
aderhol pov ayarntoi, édpaio yiverbe, apetaxivyntor, Tepiocev- 


or displeasure, and thus forcing the 
evil state to a crisis; Chr. Doctr. § 
72. 2, Vol. 11. p. 309 sq. (Transl.). As 
Harless forcibly expresses it, ‘ the law 
forces out the disease that is spreading 
under the skin,’ Chr. Ethics, § 14. 5, p- 
114 (Transl.). 

57- TS St Oew u.t.d.] ‘But thanks 
be to God who giveth us.the victory 
through our Lord Jesus Christ:’ con- 
trasted statement in the form of a 
concluding thanksgiving; death has 
this sting, sin has this power, daz there 
is One who has done away with death 
(2 Tim. i. 10), and has condemned sin 
(Rom. viii. 3): to God, then, be xdpis 
who giveth us, in Him and through 
Him, the final victory.- The unusual 
form vikos is maintained in this verse 
as in ver. 55: ‘raritas verbi opportuna 
ad epinikion,’ Bengel. The present 
part. 5{30v7: marks the sureness of the 
future issue; see Winer, Gr. § 45. 2, 
and compare Kiihner, Gr. § 382. 5. 

58. “Qerre] ‘So then, or Consequently,’ 
scil. ‘as the victory is thus assured;’ 
‘exhortation flowing from the thankful 
assurance of the last, and the imme- 
diately preceding verses, the éare with 
the imperative closing, with suitably 
rhetorical force (see notes on ch. x. 12), 
the triumphant verses with an exhorta- 
tion of a similarly exalted strain, 
Similar conclusions occur ch. iii, 21, x. 
12, Xi. 33, xiv. 39. The reference here 
is not to the whole section, but, as the 
mapaiveois itself, by its reference to 
«émos, Clearly suggests, to the victorious 
issue which is promised, and to the 
assurance thereby implied that the 
«émos will not be in vain. 

GdeXkhol pov dyamyrot] is certainly 
noticeable as showing how deep was 


the affection of the Apostle for his 
converts, even while he is thus noticing, 
in the case of some of them, the 
gravest possible form of error: comp. 
ch. iv. 14, X. 14. eSpator ylver Oe, 
Gperaklyytor] ‘de ye firm (stable), un- 
moveable:’ the second epithet pre- 
senting, on the negative side, the idea 
of stability (édpaiov as KvBos, Plut.) 
implied in the first; see the closely 
parallel passage Col. i. 23, and notes 
in loc. The term duerakivetos is asso- 
ciated with BéBaws (as here with 
édpaios) as a complementary idea, 
Aristot. Z¢hic. 11. 3, Each epithet has, 
of course, reference to the 7d cadev67- 
vat (comp. 2 Thess. ii. 2) caused by the 
false teaching relative to the momen- 
tous doctrine here dwelt upon: as 
gadevouevas TadTa mapeyyua, Cheodoret. 
mepromevovTes K.T.A.] ‘ abounding in the 
work of the Lord alway ;’ participial 
clause specifying other accompani- 
ments (comp. Col. i. 28, ii. 5) that were 
to be present with the 7d édpatov and rd 
duetaxivatoy: they were not only to 
be firm and unmoveable in regard of 
doctrine, but to be fruitful in the 
Lord’s work; od pdvov avtd épyaCdpuevot, 
GAAG Kal ex mepiovolas avTd moLodyTes, 
Theoph. On this use of the participle, 
see notes and references on ch, ii. 13, 
and on ch. x. 33. Thesphere zz which 
(comp. Phil. i. 26, Col. ii. 7, al.) the 
abounding was to be displayed was 
7 Epyov tov Kuplov,—the work be- 
longing to Him (possessive gen.) and 
which He has, as it were, ever at hand 
for His servants épyd(eo@a:; see ch. 
xvi. 10, What that @pyor is will, in 
each case, be more nearly defined by 
the context (comp. ch, xvi. 10, Phil. ii. 
30): here it is general and inclusive, — 


828 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. XV. 58, XVI. 1. 


’ fal »” Lal / ' 43S 4 ec , e lal 
ovtes €v TH Epyw Tod Kupiov travtote, eidotes STL O KOTTOS Lov 


> ” \ ? / 
ov éotw Kevos ev Kupio. 


Make your collections 
weekly. These I will 
send, or myself take, to gy ¢ 
Jerusalem. I hope soon 
to stay with you. 


‘quodcunque fit ad Christi Domini 
gloriam, quale esse debet omne opus 
hominis Christiani,’ Estius; compare 
Chrysostom. elSdres] ‘ zasmuch 
as we know :’ causal participle specify- 
ing that which, by the nature of the 
case, would most quicken the 7d mepio- 
ceveww —the clear knowledge, brought 
home to each hearer and reader by the 
teaching of this chapter and all the 
inferences which it suggests (comp. 
ver. 32), that no xémos could be xevds, 
and without fruit (comp. ver. 10), in 
Him in whom maytres (womroimOhoovrat 
(ver. 22), and before whose judgment- 
seat all will be made manifest and each 
receive Ta& 6:4 Tod gduatos (2 Cor. v. 
IO). év Kvplo thus belongs, 
not to 6 dros jugy (Theoph. 1, Est.) 
— which the order obviously precludes 
— nor even exclusively to the ov éorw 
kevds (Theoph. 2), but to the whole 
clause 6 kémos x.7.A., to which the vital 
words form a qualifying conclusion ; 
comp. ch. ix. 1, and notes iz Joc. 
This reference to xémos and to épyov 
tov Kupiov forms a suitable introduc- 
tion to the practical duty which is 
specified in the next and concluding 
chapter. 


’ 


VIII. FINAL DIRECTIONS COMMUNICA- 
TIONS, AND SALUTATIONS (ch. xvi.). 


XVI. 1-9. Directions as to the col- 
lection, and arrangements as to the 
Afostle’s visit. 1. Ilepl 8% 
Tis Aoylas K.t.A.] ‘Vow concerning the 
collection that is being made for the 
saints ;’ transition, by means of the 
d€ weraBarixdy (notes oz Gal. i. 11), to 
a subject on which the Apostle had 


XVI. Ilepi 5€ tis Aoyias THs eis Tovs 


ayious, MoTep dvéta~a Tals exKNnolas THS 


previously communicated with them, 
the clause standing partially extra 
structuram (comp. ch. vii. 1, viii. I), 
and at once bringing the topic before 
the. reader: comp., however, Winer, 
Gr. § 47. e, Ss. v. wept, where (less 
probably) the clause is regarded as 
under the grammatical vinculum of the 
domep dieraéa. The unique term Aoyla (4 
ovAdoyh Tav xpnudtwy, Theod.), found 
only here and in ecclesiastical writers 
(see Suicer, Zhesaur. s. v. Vol. Il. p. 
247) is replaced elsewhere by the prac- 
tically synonymous expressions, or 
vwvia, Rom. xv. 26; 2 Cor. viii. 4; xdpts, 
ver. 3, 2 Cor. viii. 4; evAoyta, 2 Cor. 
ix. 5; éAenuootva, Acts mKiv. 17; 
mpoopopal, ib. This Aoyia is specially 
defined as being .destined for ods 
Gylous, — the saints about whose needs 
the Apostle had spoken, and who 
would be well-known as belonging to 
the mother Church at Jerusalem; 
comp. Rom.xy.26. Why the Christians 
at Jerusalem were so particularly in 
need cannot certainly be stated. At 
first the need was so great as ap- 
parently to have necessitated a com- 
munity of goods (Acts ii. 44 sq., iv. 32), 
—all help and employment having 
probably been withheld from those 
who had joined the hated and perse- 
cuted community. When this form 
of benevolence and @¢iAadeAdia had 
either partially ceased, or, from the 
rapid increase of numbers (see Acts 
vi. 7), failed to supply what was needed, 
it probably became generally under- 
stood and even partly arranged (comp. 
Gal. ii. 10), that efforts must be made 
for the mother Church by the daughter 


Cuap. XVI. 1, 2. 


/ WA \ c lal fs 
Taratias, ovtws Kal vets mroinoare. 


DCORTNTEVAN'S’ 


329 


2kaTa piav caBBatov 


o Chery x, ¢ A / / a a b) A 
éxaotos tuav tap éavT@ TWWETM Oncavpifwv 6 TL dv evod@rat, 


2. oaBBdtov] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very 


greatly preponderating authority: ec., 


Churches outside: see Ewald, “ist. of 
Isr. Vol. VII. pages 335, 358 (Transl.). 
On Christian collections, see an in- 
teresting sermon by Jones (of Nayland), 
Serm. 5, p- 47 sqq. (Lond. 1829). 
domep Siérata «.t.A.] ‘as L gave order 
to the Churches of Galatia ;’ either on 
the journey mentioned Acts xviii. 23, 
or, less probably, by a letter (Ewald 2 
loc.; covnp. p. 100). As the Apostle 
stood gladly pledged (Gal. ii. 10) to 
bring this subject before the Gentile 
Churches which he founded or visited, 
it seems most natural to suppose that 
this order was given orally, and in de- 
tail. Chrysostom and Theophylact 
call attention to the d:éraga as carrying 
with it.a tone of authority. It seems 
here rather to point to the detailed and 
explicit character of the directions, 
which is partly exemplified in what 
follows: comp. Plato, Phed. p. 115 C, 
Siadeyduevos kal diardtTwy ekacta Tay 
Aeyouevwy; Xenoph. Cyr. VII. 5. 15, 
mpds Td ciumimror de) Siardttwyv. In the 
correlative é07ep — otrw there is atone 
of precision: they were to be careful 
to follow out in detail the orders given 
to the sister Church. Reference is 
perhaps made to Galatia rather than 
to any other Church where a collection 
might still be going forward, because 
in the case of the former Church al] 
details in connection, not only with 
regard to collecting but to forwarding, 

had been fully carried out; comp. Hof- 
~ mann 77 Joc. 

2. kata plav caBBarov] ‘ Lvery first 
day of the week, ‘primo quoque die 
hebdomadis,’ Beza; the xard being 
used in its distributive sense (see notes, 
ch. xiv. 27), and pointing to each re- 

42 


caBBarwv. 


currence of the day (Winer, Gr. § 49. 
a. 6), and the singular caBBdrov being 
used in reference to the week (as in 
Mark xvi. 9, Luke xviii. 12 and not to 
the day. The use of play rather than 
mpornvy (Mark JZoc. cit.) is Hebraistic 
(see Winer, Gr. § 37: 1), the custom 
being to name the days of the week, 
‘one, two, etc. in the sabbath’ (or 
‘week’; see Gesen. Zex. s.v. 4): see 
Smith, Dict. Chr. Antig. s.v. ‘ Week,’ 
Vol. 11. p. 2050, Lightfoot, oz Matt. 
(ch. xxviii. 1), Ewald, Aztig. of Lsrael, 
p- tor (Transl.). It perhaps may be 
conceded that this passage cannot 
positively be cited as implying that at 
this time there was regular divine ser- 
vice on this day, but it certainly may 
be said that theré are traces of it in 
the N.T.: see for example Acts xx. I, 
and consider the significant fact that 
the second appearance of our risen Lord 
to the assembled Apostles was exactly 
a week after the first appearance (John 
xx. 26), and so on this first day : comp. 
Bingham, Aztig. XX. 2. 1. Tapa 
éavto tilérw | ‘lay by him,’ ‘apud se 
seponat,’ Vulg.; the prep. with the 
dative marking the locality, etc., in 
which the action of the verb takes 
place, —the idea of closeness, or rela- 
tion to the Aere, being distinctly trace- 
able in the preposition generally, and 
especially when joined with the dative : 
see Donalds. Crat.§ 177. 

& tue dv evoSarar] ‘ whatsoever (etre 
moAv, elte 6Al-yov, Chrysostom) ke may 
prosper in ;’ scil. ‘pro ratione pros- 
peritatis quam a Deo obtinuerit,’ Eras- 
mus. The 7: may here be taken as 
the subject to the passive edodotcba ; 
comp. Herod. (ist. VI. 73, edwdeOn 1d 


330 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. XVI. 2, 3. 


iva pr Stav @Ow Tore Royiar yivwvta. * bray dé Tapayéevopat, 


ods édv Soxiyudonte, dV émuctoN@y TovTOUS TréuAyw arreveyKelv 


3. Boxiudonre, 3° emistorAav] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg.: Rec, Rev. (with 
margin), Westc. and Hort, doximdonre d0 émororar, TOUTOUS K.T.A. 


mpiyyua. So apparently Syr. (‘id quod 
veniet in manus suas’), Copt. (‘bene 
ipsi cessit’), Armen. (‘ quodcunque 
succedet’). The individualizing tenor 
of the clause, however, seems to render 
it more probable that the verb has here 
a personal reference, and that the 8 7 
is the accusative of the defining object ; 
comp. Matt. xix. 20, and see above, 
notes on ch. ix. 25, where this usage is 
fully discussed. The form evodovcbu 
occurs also in Rom. i, 10, and in 3 John 
2, and in both cases, as here, in the 
metaphorical sense ‘ prospero successu 
gaudere:’ see Meyer oz Rom. i. 10. 
The purpose of the foregoing command 
is explained in the clause that follows, 
—that the collections may not be 
going on (ylvwyra) when the Apostle 
shall have come to them. All was 
then to be ready. The weekly collec- 
tions were to be amassed, and to be in 
a state to be transmitted to those in 
need. The antithetical collocation of 
the words is designed to throw the 
emphasis on the tére— zen, when there 
will be so much else to be attended 
to; ‘tunc alia agemus,’ Bengel. 

3. ots dv Soxipdaonte] whomsocver 
ye shall (then) approve ;’ the aor. sub- 
junctive standing in parallelism with 
the same tense in the preceding clause, 
and, with the usual force of the mood, 
contemplating the action as in the fu- 
ture: see Kiihner, Gr. § 394.1. The 
Apostle naturally assigns to those who 
supply the money the further duty of 
choosing fit persons to be the bearers, 
of it. On the use of édv for & after 
relatives, most probably a peculiarity 
of the later language, see Winer, Gr. 
§ 42.6. Lachmann and Tregelles here 


adopt the latter form, but on authority 
apparently insufficient, the tendency to 
correction being taken into due con- 
sideration. SU émorrodkov] by 
means of letters, scil. ‘with letters 
given to them to attest their missions ;’ 
comp. Winer, Gr. § 47. i, and § 27. 2. 
These words must be joined with 
méuyw (Syr., Copt., Aith.; Chrys., 
Theoph.) rather than with doxjudonte 
(Arm., Rev.), as the émioroAat could 
hardly be the media of the Soxipacia: 
the ¢esting and consequent approval 
(comp. notes oz Phil. i. 10) would be 
brought about by other means; letters 
would be the means employed to con- 
vey the result. To regard all this as 
expressed by Soximd ew &” émoroAdy 
would certainly be to assume a rather 
unusual brachyology. In the connec- 
tion of the clause with meu, the diffi- 
culty is less, as the use of the preposi- 
tion with verbs expressive of motion, 
condition, etc., to denote the circum- 
stances and relations amid which the 
action takes place, is certainly far from 
being unusual: comp. 1 John v. 6, Heb. 
ix. 12, and see Harrison, Greek Prep. 
s. v. did, p. 197. The words are placed 
in a position of prominence (not tov- 
tous 80 emioToAdy méupw) as marking 
the contrasted course to that which, 
under particular circumstances (ver. 4), 
the Apostle might be led to adopt: 
ws by ei €Acyev, 71 Kayw ovverouat avTors, 
kal Kowwvhow THs Aeroupylas dia Tav 
ypauudtwv, Chrys. The word émorodal 
may refer to a single letter (Kiihner, 
Gr. § 348. 2. rem. 2), but more naturally 
implies that the Apostle would write 
not merely to one but to several of 
those to whom the approved messen- 


Cuap. XVI. 3-6 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


331 


Tv xapw tuav eis ‘Iepovoadjp: *éav dé afvov 7 TOD Kame 


a 3 
mopeverOat, ody Ewoi TopevocovTaL. 


5° Erevoouar S€ m1pos 
be p 


ipas Stav MaxeSoviav Sé\Ow, Maxedoviav yap Siépyopas, © mpos 


4. &kwov 7] So Lachm., Treg. Rev., Westc. and Hort, on preponderating 


authority: Rec., Zisch., 7 &ksov. 


gers were to go; see Winer, Gr. § 
heey viv Xap tpav] ‘your 
gracious gift, ‘beneficentiam vestram,’ 
Beza-mcomp. 2 Cor vill. 4) 6,)/7; 19, 
The word is associated with Swped, 
Demosth. Ad. p. 567, Polyb. “ist. I. 
Bie O: steph. Lex. s:v.. Vol. VIII. p. 
1339 (ed. Hase). 

4. éav 8& dévov K.7.A.] ‘but zf the 
matter be worthy of my going also ;’ 
excepted case, in which the Apostle 
will not simply send letters, but will 
go himself. The substantival infinitive 
is dependent on the &fov (Winer, Gv. 
§ 44. 4. a), and the reference of the 
&éiov is to the amount of the Aoyia: if 
the amount were only to prove small 
it would not be becoming that the 
Apostle should be the bearer of it; 
maAw eis Sapideiay avTovs mpoTperet, 
Chrys. In the xaué and the civ éuol 
mopevoovtat (not mopevoouat ody avTots ; 
comp, Acts x. 20) the apostolic dignity 
is gently, yet distinctly maintained. He 
will not go unless the gift be worthy of 
the Church. The derivative meaning 
‘meet’ or ‘seemly’ (2 Thess. i. 3) does 
not seem in harmony with the present 
use of &1ov with a dependent genitive. 
That the Apostle dd go to Jerusalem 
with these offerings would seem to be 
clear from Acts xx. 3, xxi. 17, compared 
with Acts xxiv. 17. This was his fifth 
journey to that city: he had previously 
borne alms thither on his second jour- 
ney: see Acts xi. 29 sq. 

5: HAetoopat S& «.7.A.] ‘ But J will 
come to you when T shall have passed 
through Macedonia.’ From 2 Cor. i. 
15, 16, it is clear that the original in- 
tention of the Apostle was to go from 


Ephesus to Corinth and thence onward 
to Macedonia, returning from Mace- 
donia to Corinth, a devrdépay xdpw 
éxwow (see 2 Cor. i.15). This inten- 
tion was not carried out : to spare them 
(2 Cor. i. 23) he went first to Macedonia 
(Acts xx. I), and visited Corinth on his 
return. Makedoviav yap 
SépXopar] ‘for L pass through Mace- 
donia, ‘I make there no stay, but per- 
haps shall do so in your case;’ there 
being no parenthesis, but a contrasted 
relation between the 6Siépxoua: and the 
mapayeva: see Winer, Gr. § 62. I. 
The present 5:épxouat marks that which 
was now fixed in the mind of the 
speaker, and regarded as almost actu- 
ally an accomplishment; comp. Xen. 
Cyr. VI. 1. 20, él ye rovrous eye aitos 
mapépxouat. In &pxouat and its com- 
pounds, and a few other verbs of 
similar meaning, the present is often 
preferentially used where the action is 
contemplated as near at hand: the 
future often seems to place the com- 
mencement of the action too far off, 
and is thus instinctively avoided by 
the writer when the matter is near and 
imminent: see the good comments of 
Buttm. Gramm. WN. T. p. 176 sq. 
Kiihner, Gr. § 382. 7. 

6. mpds twas Sé k.7.A.] ‘but with you 
zt may chance that I shall abide or even 
winter ;’ the mpds buds being studiously 
put forward and with a slight emphasis, 
—‘Macedonia I pass through; with 
you, perhaps, I shall stay ;’ dpa mport- 
now, Chrys. (Cramer, Ca¢.). In the 
present use of mpés the essential idea 
of the eve involved in the root (see 
Donalds. Crat. § 177) predominates 


332 


tmas b€ Tuyov Tapayev@ 7) Kal Tapayewmdce, 
TpoTréuynte ov éav Tropevoua. ‘ov Oédw yap 


over tha: of motion conveyed by the s, 
but the true meaning of the prep. with 
the accus. may be traced in this use 
(especially when with persons) as de- 
noting approach and intercourse rather 
than mere passive locality ; comp. Matt. 
xiii. 56, John i. 1, 1 Johni. 2. Even in 
non-personal reference, Mark ii. 2, iv. 
I, Acts v. 10, al., the appropriateness 
of the case, and the hint of antecedent 
motion may easily be traced: comp. 
Winer, Gr. s. v. mpds (with acc.), § 49. 
h, Kriiger, Sprachi. § 68 sq. 4, Bern- 
hardy, Syz¢. p. 202, and notes oz Gal. 
i. 18. The neuter impersonal partici- 
ple rvxév does not occur elsewhere in 
the N. T.: it is properly an accus. ab- 
solute, but is here used as a simple 
adverb. On these forms, see Kiihner, 
Gr. § 487. The Greek expositors re- 
fer the use of the expression to the 
uncertainty in the Apostle’s mind as 
to what might be the Lord’s will (see 
ver. 7): Bengel, perhaps more naturally, 
says simply,— ‘ familiarissime loquitur.’ 
It may be noticed that Westc. and 
ffort adopt the reading katapeva. 
Conformation to the tapaxemdow is 
certainly far from improbable, but the 
external authority (BM ; 672) does not 
seem sufficient to turn the scale in 
favor of the less usual compound. 
The form karauevey only occurs once 
in the N. T. (Acts i. 13). The same 
editors place the «af in the margin, but 
again on authority that does not seem 
to be sufficient. tva dpets 
K.T.d.] ‘that ye may set me forward on 
my journey whithersoever I may go;’ 
friendly purpose of the contemplated 
stay, duets again having emphasis and 
marking the Apostle’s interested feeling 
(rhv mpds abrodvs dia0eow, Theoph.) 
towards his converts. The use of the 
relative adverb, or (according to 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. XVI. 6,7. 


iva tyels pe 
bas apte ev 


Kihner, Gr. § 565) conjunction, of 
place, of instead of of, is condemned by 
grammarians, but is the usage of the 
N. T. (Luke x. 1, xxii. 10, xxiv. 28) and 
indeed of later Greek generally: see 
Rutherford, Phrynichus, § 30, p. 114 
sq. Whither the Apostle was then 
earnestly designing to go (ero év TG 
mvevuatt, Acts xix. 21) was Jerusalem, 
and then — Rome. 

7. 00 OéXw yap K.t..] ‘For J do not 
wish to see you now (merely) in passing ;” 
confirmatory of the not improbable 
stay, the d&pre ev mapddm ideiy (to be con- 
nected together) certainly appearing to 
point to the Apostle’s having thus 
seen them once before, though it 
cannot positively be maintained from 
the words (&pt: being apparently un- 
emphatic) that it was so. The two 
clearest passages in favor of the 
Apostle’s having ¢#rice visited Corinth 
are 2 Cor. xii. 14, and xiii. 1,—but 
even these cannot be pronounced con- 
clusive, as, in the first passage, tpitov 
Tovto may be joined with Eroiuws exw, 
and, in the second passage, the pxouat 
(see above, notes on ver. 5) may point 
to a purpose which, in regard of the 
assumed second journey, was not actu- 
ally carried out. We are not, then, 
exegetically justified in pressing the 
pri évy mapddw in the contested question 
above alluded to. On the meaning 
of &pri and its practical equivalence, in 
later writers, to viv, see notes ox I 
Thess. iii. 6. In this later Greek it 
seems stronger than the mere ‘just’ to 
which it often exactly corresponds in 
earlier Greek: comp. Rutherford, 
Phryn. § 12, p. 70 sq. The term éy 
mapédw (‘thairhleipands,’ Goth.) occurs 
only here in the N. T., but is found 
both in earlier and later Greek writers, 
— sometimes with év ti mapé5@, Polyb. 


Cuap. XVI. 7, 9. 


mGORTINTHLANS 


333 


16 is a aN 1G \ f \ > a x e lal 
TApo @ loelVv, € TTLG@ yap XPovov TWA E€ETTLLELVAL Tpos upas, 


éav 6 Kupuos erutpetry. 


8 ériweva Sé ev Edéow ews ths TwevTn- 


a - 9 @ 7 / > LA aN \ > / \ A 
KOOTHS upa Yap Mol ave@yey MEyaAN Kal Evepyns, Kat ayTi- 


KELMmEVOL TTOAAOL. 


7. éamilw yp] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very 


greatly preponderating authority: Rec., éami(w 5é. 


In what follows, 


émitpén is adopted in the above-mentioned edd. on very clearly preponderating 


authority: Rec., émrpérp. 


Fiist. v. 68. 8), but more commonly 
without, the article. éXtrlLo 
yap K.t..] ‘for Lam hoping to tarry 
some little time with you if the Lord 
should permit 3’ in confirmatory expla- 
nation of the ov @édAw «.7.A.; the 
Apostle’s hope made the desire more 
distinctly felt not to pay merely a 
passing visit. The hope is émmeiva 
(aor., — the whole thought being con- 
centrated on the action apart from 
its development; see Kiihner, Gr. § 
389. 7. ¢. 8), but the hope is subordi- 
nated to the Lord’s permission, —the 
aor. having its tinge of the future 
exact, and similarly directing all the 
attention to the action referred to: 
so ch. vii. 8, where see notes. It is 
doubtful whether 6 Kupios refers to the 
First or the Second Person of the 
blessed Trinity; the latter (comp. ver. 
1o) seems the more probable; see, 
however, notes on ch. iv. 19. 

8. émpevo St «1.A.] ‘But L shall 
tarry in Ephesus until Pentecost ;” 
statement of his present expectation, 
founded on the circumstances of the 
case (hence, perhaps, ‘shall tarry,’ 
rather than ‘will tarry,’ Auth.; see 
Maetzner, Zzg/. Gr. Vol. 11. p. 80, 82, 
Transl.), of remaining where he was, 
till the season was more fully advanced. 
It is doubtful whether we are here to 
adopt the present tense émimévw (Arm., 
perhaps Goth. [but Gothic has no fu- 
ture form]; Westc. and Hort), or the 
future émmev@ (Vulg., Clarom., Copt. ; 
Lachm., Tisch. Treg., Rev.); either 


yielding a contextually appropriate 
sense. Perhaps the use of the future 
in ver. 5, and especially in ver. 7, may 
give the preponderance to the use of 
that tense in the present verse. Pen- 
tecost is named as a rough date, — 
probably at some /tt/e distance from 
the time when the Apostle was writing 
(early in the year),— when travelling 
would be easy and convenient. 

Q. Opa yap pou K.T.A.] ‘for a door is 
(xow) standing open to me, great and 
effectual ;’ confirmatory explanation of 
the foregoing statement; a @vpa Tov 
Adryou (Col. iv. 3; see also 2 Cor. ii. 
12; Acts xiv. 27 is slightly different) 
was now standing open, or, in other 
words, obstacles were removed, and a 
great opportunity for the preaching of 
the Gospel was now being offered, 
and, —it must needs be,— taken. This 
@vpa is further described as peydAn, in 
regard of the numbers that were thus 
able to make use of it (edptywpds por 7 
etcodos, Chrys.), and, by a very intelli- 
gible transference of metaphor, évepyns, 
in reference to the activity which the 
opportunity called forth; comp. Philem. 
6, and notes zz Joc. The intransitive 
form avéwyev is condemned by Phryni- 
chus as a solecism, avéwxrat being the 
proper form ; see Rutherford zz Joc. p. 
247. kal avriKketwevor trodol] 
‘and there are many opposing;’ not 
exactly moAAol of avtitelvoyres, Theod., 
but, ‘there are many in number en- 
gaged in opposition, —the participle 
being anarthrous: comp. Kihner, Gr. 


334 
Give a true welcome 
to Timothy. I urged 


Apollos to go to you, 
but he waits awhile. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


CHAP. XVI. g-11. 


10°Kav 6€ On Tipodeos, PBrérete iva 
apoBws yévntat pos twas TO yap épyov 


Kupiov épyaterat as xaryo* © wn tis obv adtov éLovlevicn. mTpo- 


10. kayé] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. on clearly preponderating authority: 
Rec., nat éyé: Westc. and Hort (with margin), eye. 


§ 462. 1. The clause gives a further 
reason why the Apostle must stay on, 
—‘a great opportunity, many ready 
to enter in, azd many, too, to try and 
hinder them.’ That «af has thus its 
proper force, is clear: comp. Winer, 
Gr. § 53.2. b. For the verification of 
the statement, see Acts xix. 23 sqq. 


10-12. Communications relative to 
Timothy and Apollos. 
10. "Hav 8% tAOy 6 TipdOeos] ‘ Vow zf 
Timothy should come ;’ transition, by 
means of the d5€ peraBatixdy, to the 
the subject of the mission of Timothy ; 
see ch. iv. 17. Some little difficulty 
has been felt in this passage, owing to 
the use of the hypothetical édév, Tim- 
othy having apparently been sent 
specially, and with definite instructions. 
The true explanation seems to be, that 
as-Timothy was sent by way of Mace- 
donia (Acts xix. 22) the Apostle felt it 
to be quite possible that his messen- 
ger’s arrival might be delayed, and 
that, as appears really to have been 
the case, he might not, at that time, 
reach them at all. Timothy, as we 
know, was still in Macedonia when 
the Apostle wrote thence his second 
Epistle: see 2 Cor. i. 1. Brérrere 
tva dpdBus K.T.A.] ‘see that he be with 
you without fear;’ the a marking 
the intention of the verb (comp. 2 John 
8, BAémete Eavtots, va wh amor€eonTe; 
Col. iv. 17, BAémre Thy Siaxoviay ... iva 
avthv mwAnpois), and the change from 
the more usual BAémere wh with a posi- 
tively expressed predication, to the 
Baémere iva, with a negatively expressed 
predication, being designed to give 


greater force and prominence to the 
adverb; ‘so receive him that his in- 
tercourse with you may be free and 
fearless ;’ ‘secure apud vos agat,’ Est. 
On this union of modal adverbs with 
elvat, ylyverOa «.7.A., see Kiihner, Gr. 
§ 353. 4, § 355. a. 1: comp. Thucyd. II. 
14, XaAeT@s avTois } avdoracts éyeveTo. 
Why this direction was given is dif- 
ferently explained. The direction in 
the next verse, especially when com- 
pared with 1 Tim. iv. 12, seems almost 
certainly to indicate that it was the 
youth of Timothy (he was now seven 
or eight years younger than when his 
vedrns was alluded to in 1 Tim. /.c.: 
see notes zz Joc.) that suggested the 
Baémerex.t.A. So rightly Chrys., Theod., 
al. The inference that Timothy was 
of a timid disposition (De Wette, Al- 
ford) cannot be substantiated : comp. 
notes oz 2 Tim. i. 6. Td yap 
¢pyov Kuptov x.t.d.] ‘for he works the 
work of the Lord ;’ in confirmation of 
the direction just given; amd 77 diaxo- 
vias a&idmictoy avtoy moet, Chrys. On 
the term épyov Kupiov, see notes on ch, 
xv. 58. 

II. ph Tis obv K.T.A.] ‘let no mean 
therefore set him at nought :’ a stronger 
expression than the katagpoveirw of 
1 Tim. iv. 12, and to be translated ac- 
cordingly; ‘pro nihilo habeat,’ Beza, 
and so apparently Arm., which adopts 
a term compounded similarly to the 
Greek. Bengel very pertinently cites 
Ps. cxix. 141, vedtepos eyé ciut ad efov- 
devwuévos. This clause is only to be 
separated by a colon from what pre. 
cedes. What follows is matter of a 
slightly different nature : eis Thy 70d ma- 


CuHap. XVI. 11, 12. 


7 COR TINGE ELAN Ss 


335 


méurpate Sé adtov év eipnvn, iva ENOn pos pe exdéYowar yap 


QUTOV META TOV adEeApOv. 


~ E [lepi dé’ AtroAXw® Tod adedgod, 


iA ca) a fal 
TohAa Tapekdreoa adtov iva éEXOy mpos buds peTa TOV adeApav* 


Kal TavtTws ovK hv OédAnpa va viv ENOn, EdevoeTas 5é, OTav 


evKalpnon. 


11. mpds we] So Rec., Tisch., Weste 
Lachm., Treg., mpds eué. 


Ontod Oepameiay avTovs dieyetper, Theod. 
mporepare St aitov év eiphry] ‘ But 
set him on his way in peace ;’ con- 
trasted statement; ‘far from giving 
him cause for apprehension and anxi- 
ety, or setting at nought him and his 
counsels, show him friendly attention 
—in peace;’ i.e. in a spirit wholly re- 
moved from opposition and conten- 
tion; ‘humanitate prosequimini,’ Est. 
The words év eiphvn are connected with 
what follows by Hofmann, on the 
ground that they form an aimless ad- 
dition to what precedes. Surely the 
whole tenor of the context shows that 
it is to the acts of the Corinthians that 
attention is directed, and that the mo- 
dal clause is needed to give the mpo- 
méeuare its actual, as well as its implied, 
aspect of true Christian @epamela: eipn- 
ynv avaraBbytTes mpoTeupare avtoy ey TH 
nuetépa duovola kad eiphyn, Origen. 
pera tav a8Sedpav ‘ with the brethren ;’ 
scil. who are with him; comp. ver. 12. 
Only one, viz. Erastus (of Corinth) is 
mentioned by St. Luke as being sent 
with Timothy (Acts xix. 22); but this 
by no means excludes the possibility 
of others having gone with them, or 
of the Apostle’s expecting that Timo- 
thy would be joined by others on his 
return after his mission. 

12. ILept 8 “ArrodAAd tod ddeApod] 
* But concerning Apollos the brother ;’ 
transition to the subject of Apollos, and 
to the desire apparently entertained, 
and perhaps expressed to St. Paul (comp. 
Ambrost.), on the part of the Corin- 


. and Hort, on preponderating authority : 


thians, that the eloquent and persuasive 
Alexandrian (Acts xix. 24 sqq.) should 
pay them a second visit. Subjects in 
which the Corinthians were interested 
are similarly introduced ver. 1, and ch. 
Vil. I, 25, Vill. I, xu. 1. On the’ sortiof 
extra-structural character of this ep 
K.T.A., see Winer, Gr. § 47. e, and 
comp. notes onver.1. The Tov adeApod 
is probably added to show the close 
relation that existed between St. Paul 
and Apollos (Est.), and the unreason- 
ableness of regarding them as repre- 
sentatives of different parties. 

TOANG Tapekdreoa K.T.A.] ‘LZ besought 
him much that he should come unto you 
with the brethren ;’ the wa denoting 
alike the subject and the purpose of 
the entreaty; see 1 Thess. iv. 1, 2 
Thess. iii. 12, Col. i. 9, and notes oz 
Eph.i.17. The brethren here alluded 
to are certainly not companions of the 
Apostle’s who are supposed to have 
joined with him in the request (Hof- 
mann), but the (Corinthian) brethren 
who were the bearers back of this 
Epistle to Corinth. Kal wavTes 
K.T.A.] ‘and there was not will at all 
(02 his part) that he should come now ;’ 
the iva still more distinctly marking the 
subject of the @éAnua, and propor- 
tionately obscuring the idea of pur- 
pose; comp. Matt. xviii. 14, John. vi. 
39, 40, and see notes on ch. xiv. 5, 
Winer, Gyr. § 44. 8. 4, and the sensible 
remarks of Buttmann, VV. 7. Gramm. 
p- 204 sq. Apollos was unwilling to 
go, perhaps from some fear that his 


336 


Be firm in faith. 
all things in love. 


Do 


1 CORINTHIANS: 


Cuap. XVI. 12-15. 


By, a / > lal ¥ b) r) f 
PNYOPELTE, ad tas a €v TH TiOTEL, AV pe 


6 nr 0 : 14 / ¢€ r rc] > / / 6 
2 . 
Ceo €, KPATALOVIOVE TTAVTA ULWV EV aYaTTH YiwWeoUw 


presence might call out anew the spirit 
of faction and party (comp. Origen zz 
foc. ap. Cramer, Cat.), but more likely 
from local and temporary circum- 
stances which, in his judgment, at that 
time absolutely precluded him. To 
refer the @éAjua to the will of God (as 
apparently Theod., Theoph.; comp. 
Bengel) when nothing to suggest such 
a reference is found in the context, is, 
as Estius rightly says, ‘ nimis coactum.’ 
On maytws ov and its parallelism with 
the N.T. mas ov, see Buttmann, JV. 7. 
Gramm. p. 204. brav cdkapyjoy] 
‘when he shall have found opportunity,’ 
“ubi commodum tempus nactus fuerit.’ 
The form evaipety occurs Mark vi. 31, 
Acts xvii. 21. It is found in Polybius 
(Hist. XX. 9. 4) and later writers, but 
is condemned by the grammarians 
(Meeris, p. 125, Thomas Mag. p. 829, 
Ltym. Magn. p. 740, Phrynicus, § 
103), the correct expression being ev 
oXOAHS eeu. The words etaipos 
(Mark vi. 24, Heb. iv. 16) and edcauipia 
(Matt. xxvi. 16, Luke xxii. 6), are 
perfectly good Attic words, but not 
in the sense of cxoAatos and cxoAf: 
see Rutherford, Pry. p. 205. 


13, 14. LZxhortations. 
13. Ipnyopetre «.7.d.] ‘Be watchful, 
stand firm in the faith, quit yourselves 
like men, be strong. In these four 
vigorous exhortations, together with 
that in verse 14, the Apostle sums up 
the whole duty of the Corinthian con- 
vert in the trying times and amid the 
varied temptations in which this Epistle 
would find him. That duty is set forth 
as involving five Christian graces, name- 
ly, — watchfulness (spiritual brightness 
and alacrity: opp. to 7d KaOeddev, 1 
Thess. v. 6, comp. Matt. xxv. 13; as- 
sociated with vfpew, 1 Thess. /.c., 1 Pet. 


v. 8: the form is late, Phrynicus, § 9s), 
steadfastness in the faith (ever a sure 
test whether baptismal grace is work- 
ing within, Harless, Chr. Ethics, § 25. 
4, p- 227, Transl.: contrast kAvdwvt- 
¢eoOat, Eph. iv. 16, and sadeveorOa, 
2 Thess. ii. 2), Christian manliness 
(‘ viriliter agite,’ Vulg.: dr. Aeydu. in 
N.T., but of not uncommon occurrence 
in classical and later writers ; connected 
with ioxvoare, Macc. ii. 64, and con- 
trasted with deaAatvew, Plutarch, Wor. 
p- 1046 F), spiritual strength (comp. 
Eph. iii. 16 : passive in form, but prob- 
ably middle in meaning; comp. Luke 
i. 80, ii. 40; a later form, kparivecOa 
being the earlier and correct form), and 
in the following verse, Christian love. 
The illustrative comment on this verse 
by Origen (Cramer, Caz.) is too long 
for citation, but is well worth referring 
to. 

14. wavra dpov K.t.d.] ‘let all your 
doings be done in love ;’ the pres. imper. 
marking each action in its evolution. 
Love is to be the all-embracing sphere 
in which all is to be done: Chrysostom 
cites the words under the form, rdyta 
peta aydans yivecbw, but this is a much 
weaker form : love would thus only be 
represented as a concomitant: comp. 
Eph. vi. 23, and notes zz Joc. On the 
spiritual significance of the precept, 
see Harless, Chr. Ethics, § 19. 6, p. 173 
(Transl.), and comp. Rothe, Chr. 
Lthik, § 156, Vol. 1. p. 536 (ed. 2). 


15-18. Communications relative to 
the house of Stephanas and others. 
15. Ilapaxako 8 x.7.A.] ‘Vow J be- 
seech you brethren,—ye know the 
house of Stephanas:’ transition (8& 
wetaBarixey) to special commendation 
of Stephanas and his house, and to 
similar commendatory mention of the 


Cuap. XVI. 15, 16. 


Yield respect to the 
household of Stephanas. 
He, Fortunatus, and 
Achaicus refreshed me. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


33T 


15 Tlapaxar® O€ buds, adedpot> oldate Thy 
, / an vA 
oiKiay repava, Ort 


éotiy atapx? THs 


a 4 / vA 
"Axaias Kai eis Svaxoviay tots aylou éra€av éautovs: ' iva Kal 


Upeis UToTacanabe Tols ToLOUTOLS Kai TaYTi TH GUVEpyoUVTL Kat 


other Corinthians who had come with 
him, and were now at Ephesus. The 
construction is suspended, the tva rai 
k.T.A. (ver. 16) being dependent upon 
the mapaxkad@, and the o¥Sare x.7.A. 
(oféa7re cannot possibly be an impera- 
tive) a parenthetically appended com- 
ment designed to enhance the entreaty 
and to justify the substance of it. The 
oiate «.T.A. is, however, as De Wette 
rightly observes, not a pure parenthe- 
sis: the rots tosovtos in the clause 
which carries on the suspended struc- 
ture being really dependent for its ex- 
planation on the parenthetical portion 
which has preceded it. Stephanas and 
his household had been baptized by 
the Apostle (ch. i. 16), and appear 
from this passage to have been among 
the most devoted of the Christian con- 
verts. Nothing more is known of 
them. arapx THs Axatas] 
‘the firstfruits of Achaia :’ more fully, 
Rom. xvi. 5, amapxh tis “Agias eis 
Xpisrdv. There is no reason for modi- 
fying the meaning of amapxy. Diony- 
sius, Damaris, and others with them 
(Acts xvii. 34), might individually have 
embraced the faith a short time before 
them, but, as a family, those here 
mentioned distinctly deserved the title. 
The province of Achaia included the 
Peloponnesus, Hellas proper, and the 
adjacent islands: with Macedonia it 
represents the whole of Greece : comp. 
Re Dhesss dec 7.)6. kal éragay 
K.t.A.] ‘and that they set themselves to 
minister to the saints;’ the rt ex- 
tending over both clauses, or rather, 
being mentally repeated before the 
ératay: ‘sermo pluralis refertur ad 
domum Stephanz, quz est collectiva 


43 


multorum,’ Est. The expression 
tTdooew éavtovs seems to mark the 
steady purpose and devotion of these 
converts: Schleusner (Zex. s. v. rdoow) 
appositely cites Plato, Republ. p. 371 
C, éavtovs ém thy diakovlay rarTovet 
TauThy: see also Kypke zz doc. Vol. I. 
p- 234. Whatthe nature of the d:axovla 
was cannot be determined. It prob- 
ably included much more than a strong 
interest in the collections, the &y:o0z 
being here quite general and inclusive 
in its reference. The dative is de- 
pendent on the verbal subst. d:akovia: 
see Kiihner, Gr. § 424. There is in 
such a connection a certain amount of 
harshness; compare Rumpel, Casus- 
lehre, p. 299. In 2 Cor. viii. 4, ix. 1, 
the expression assumes the easier form 
Siaxovlas THs eis Tovs Gylous : destination, 
however, is the prevalent idea in this 
latter case; denefit, that in the text. 
16. tva kal dpets «.7.A.] ‘ that ye also 
submit yourselves unto such men (as 
these) ;’? dependent on the mentally 
repeated mapakad@ ; see above, on ver. 
15, and on ver. 12. The «af marks the 
correspondent relation: as they were so 
zealous, ye ought to be correspondently 
subordinate: comp. notes oz Phil. iv. 
12. The generalizing tots ro:ovros pre- 
cludes the assumption that there is 
here reference to any office which 
Stephanas might have held. He and 
his were to be honored and deferred 
to for their work’s sake. 
kal mayre k.t.A.] ‘ard to every one that 
Shareth in the work and toileth ;’ the 
avy in the verb being probably inclusive 
(‘vel cum illis vel mecum,’ Estius’ or, 
perhaps better, ‘cum aliis,’ Bengel), 
and referring to Christians’ generally ; 


338 1 CORINTHIANS. Cuap. XVI. 15-18. 


komiavtt. ™“ yaipw dé éml th mapovoig Stepava «at Poptov- 


, \> ” aA x Le f e f Ld > / 
VaATOU Kal Ayaixod, OTL TO UMETEPOV VO TEPH LA OUTOL aveTAnpacav % 


18 


ovv TOUS TOLOUTOUS. 


avéravoay yap TO éuov Tredwa Kal TO Umar. 


emruywwaakeTe 


17. Boprovvdrov] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very 


greatly preponderating authority: Mec., ovprouvdrov. 
edd. also adopt suerepoy, on preponderating authority: Rec., tudv. 


The above-mentioned 
In what 


follows, Zachm. adopts avrol, on what is now clearly insufficient authority, 


so apparently Vulg., ‘ omni cooperanti,’ 
sim. Arm., Aith., Goth.; Syr., ‘qui 
laborat nobiscum.’ On the meaning 
of komidw, which always seems to carry 
with it some idea of suffering labor, see 
notes oz 1 7im.iv.9, and om 1 Thess. 
li. 9. 

17. Xalpw St k.t.d.] ‘ And J rejoice at 
the coming here of etc.;’ the 6€ adding 
a zew though germane subject,— the 
Apostle’s gladness that Stephanas 
and his two comrades are come to 
Ephesus, and were supplying the place 
of the absent. On this familiar use of 
d€, see Kiihner, Gr. § 526. 2. Nothing 
is known of Fortunatus and Achaicus. 
They might have belonged to the 
family of Stephanas, but, as being 
mentioned by name and separately, 
most likely were unconnected with it. 
Fortunatus is mentioned by Clem.-Rom. 
1 Cor. cap. 59, and in a manner that 
has been thought to favor his identifi- 
cation with the Fortunatus here men- 
tioned; see Smith, Diéct. Chr. Biogr. 
Vol. I. p. 556. The Epistle of Clement 
was, however, written probably more 
than a generation later than this present 
Epistle. St. Td tpérepov 
torépnpa K.7.r.] ‘because that which 
was lacking on your partthese (brethren) 
supplied ;’ sim. Vulg., ‘id quod vobis 
deerat ;’ Syr., ‘in quo deficiebatis erga 
me;’ Goth., ‘izvarana vaninassu’ [de- 
rived from ‘vans,’ want]; Copt., ‘de- 
fectum vestrum.’ The words may 
mean ‘the want of you,’ scil., ‘on my 
part,’ ‘vestrum omnium presentiam 


mihi alioqui desideratam,’ Estius, the 
buérepoy being taken objectively (ch. xv. 
31; so Winer, Gr. § 22.7, Meyer, De 
Wette), but the partially parallel pas- 
sages 2 Cor. viii. 14, ix. 12, Phil. ii. 30, 
seem to suggest the simpler, even if it 
be the less delicately complimentary, 
‘your want of access to me;’ see Hof- 
mann zz Zoc., and comp. Chrys., Theoph. 
It must not be forgotten that the three 
here mentioned were probably bearers 
of a letter to the Apostle and, in a 
certain measure, were representatives 
of the absent Corinthian Church. On 
the meaning of avamAnpody (to ‘make 
up what is lacking’), see notes ox 
Phil. ii. 30. 

18. avéraveav yap K.t.A.] ‘for they 
refreshed my spirit, and yours ;” proof 
of the clause just preceding, ‘they well 
made up for the torépnua on your 
part; for by their presence they re- 
freshed my spirit—and yours (the kat 
7d tuay being perhaps added with a 
tinge of emphazing pause), inasmuch 
as you were represented by them, and 
were ministering in their persons;’ are 
5? aitav mapaortdyres TH MavAw, Chrys. 
The refreshment these three men gave 
to the Apostle must, by the nature of 
the bond of affection between them, 
have borne refreshment to the Church 
which was thus representatively minis- 
tering to itsfounder. For similar uses 
of avamavew, see 2 Cor. vii. 13, Philem. 
7,20; émvywwaokere ody K.T.A. ] 
‘Acknowledge ye then such men (as 
these) ;’? ‘qui hujusmodi sunt,’ Vulg.; 


Cuap. XVI. 18, 19. 


TVECORINTHIANS. 339 


The Churches of Asia 
and others salute you. 


aotrageta, tuas év Kupim modda “Andras cat IIpicxa ovv tH 


19 Aomdfovtas pas ai éxxkAnoia THs Acias. 


19. aomdera] So Zisch., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on clearly preponderating 
authority, and on internal probability also: Rec., Lachm. (with margin), TZyreg. 
(with margin), domd(ovra.. In what follows, Mpicxa is adopted by 
Tisch. Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort on preponderating authority: Rec., Lachm., 


TiplokiAAa. 


the collective oby (see notes on ch. vii. 
26) gathering up what has preceded in 
the form of an appropriate direction, 
and the tovs toiottovs (as in ver. 16) 
giving it a generalized aspect. The 
Corinthians were to recognize such 
men,—men who had taken a long 
journey (Chrys.), and faithfully exe- 
cuted their commission, — and to ac- 
knowledge them for their work’s sake. 
On the meaning of émi-ywéoreww, see 
notes on ch. xiii. 12, and compare 
eldévat, I Thess. v. 12. The idea of 
paying honor and reverence (Estius) is 
not expressed in the direction, but 
would certainly be the result of fol- 
lowing it. 


19, 20. Salutations. 
19. “Aomdfovrat tpas «.t..] ‘ Zhe 
Churches of Asia salute you. Theterm 
Asia in the N. T. seems generally to 
be limited to the Roman Province 
bearing that name, the area of which, 
in the time of St. Paul, appears to 
have been confined to Mysia, Lydia, 
and Caria: see Wieseler, Chvronol. 
Apost. p. 32 sq., Smith, Dict. of Bible, 
s.v. ‘Asia,’ Vol. I. p. 124. The term 
thus, speaking roughly, includes the 
countries on the western coast of Asia 
Minor, but apparently sometimes with 
a wider, sometimes with a narrower, 
application: see notes 072 2 Jim. i. 15. 
domdterar tpas «7.A.] 6 Aguila and 
Prisca salute you much in the Lord, 
Aquila was a Jew of Pontus whom, 
with his wife Priscilla or, as here, 
Prisca, the Apostle found at Corinth 


on his arrival there from Athens 
(Acts xviii. 2.). They had fled from 
Rome owing to the edict of Claudian. 
At Corinth they were associated with 
the Apostle in the trade of making 
tent-cloth, and they subsequently went 
with him to Ephesus (Acts xviii. 18). 
They are mentioned as having in- 
structed Apollos on his arrival in that 
city (Acts xviii. 24). They probably 
left Ephesus with the Apostle, and 
shortly afterwards went to Rome 
(Rom. xvi. 3), but apparently returned 
to Ephesus: see 2 Tim. iv. 19, and 
notes 72 Joc, The 
greeting of this godly and devoted pair 
is defined as év Kupiw ‘in the Lord,’ ze. 
‘in Christ’ (notes 07 1 Zhess. iii, 12): 
it was a greeting, given in Christ as its 
sphere and element, and under the 
feeling of fellowship in Him and with 
Him; comp. Rom. xvi. 22, and notes 
on Eph. iv. 17. On the use of the 
singular where, as here, the predicate 
precedes, see Winer, Gr. § 58. 6. B. 
Husband and wife are regarded as a 
unity, though in the next clause spoken 
of in plurality wer airy): see ex- 
amples from classical writers, in Kiih- 
ner, Gr. § 370. 2, especially Xen. Azad. 
II. 4. 16. aviv TY Kat’ olkov 
K.T.X.] ‘together with the Church that is 
in their house. Were, at Ephesus, 
as afterwards in Rome (Rom. xvi. 5), 
Aquila and Prisca devoted their house 
to the use of probably one of the 
several Christian assemblies which 
must have come into existence during 
the rapid growth of the Church in 


340 


’ S ’ a , ’ 
KaT oiKOV avT@V éKKANOIA. 
TAVTES. 


My own salutation, and 
benediction. 


Ephesus (comp. Acts-xix. 10, 18, 20, 
26). The several assemblies, or as we 
might call them, house-churches, made 
up the local Church. For similar in- 
stances, see Col. iv. 15, Philem. 2, and 
notes z7 Jocc.: compare Pearson, Creed, 
Vol. 1. p. 397 (ed. Burton), Neander, 
Planting, Vol. I. p. 151, note (Bohn). 
20. aomatovrat ipas k.7.A.] ‘All the 
brethren salute you:’ all the individual 
members of Churches as well as 
the Churches into which they are 
grouped. On the position of mdvres, 
and the probable absence of any par- 
ticular emphasis in the position, see 
notes on ch.xy.7. The order of Vulg., 
‘omnes fratres,’ is, however, to be pre- 
ferred to the unemphatic ‘fratres 
omnes,’ of Beza; the distinction is real, 
though hard to be expressed without 
exaggeration. év budjpate aylo] 
‘with a holy kiss ;’ the év marking that 
iz which and éy which the salutation 
was expressed, and passing naturally 
into its instrumental use; see notes ov 
1 Thess. iv. 18. This Gy:ov piAnua is 
also specified on Rom. xvi. 16, 2 Cor. 
xiii. 12, 1 Thess. v. 26 (where see notes 
and references), and, under the form 
pirAnua aydrns, in I Pet. v.14. In all 
these passages the p/Anua appears as 
the prescribed manifestation of affec- 
tion and brotherly love, as ‘symbolum 
charitatis et dilectionis,’ Suicer. It was, 
however, not to be merely the ordinary 
salutation of Oriental life, but a &y:ov 
gidnua, a formal and solemn expression 
of the 7d GAAHAous a&yamay which was 
the quickening principle of Christian 
life: comp. 1 John iv. 7 sqq. It thus 
soon assumed a formal place in the 
services and offices of the Church, — 
following prayer, and preceding the 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. XVI. 19-22. 


~ aordfovtar tuas of aderdot 
"Aotasaacbe addyrous ev firyjpats ayio. 
21°Q domacpos TH eun xerpi TIavdov. * ef 


communion (Justin M. AZo/. 1. 65), — 
as the ‘signaculum orationis’ (Tertull. 
de Orat. 18), the ‘osculum pacis’ (ib. 
14), and the almost inseparable adjunct 
to all higher Christian worship. For 
further details, see Smith and Cheet- 
ham, Dict. of Chr. Antiqg. Vol. 11. p. 902 
sq., Suicer, 7hesaur. Vol. I. p. 1430; 
and the references in notes oz 1 Thess. 
v. 26. 


21-24. Autographic salutation ana 
benediction. 21. ‘O doracpos 
K.t.A.] ‘ Zhe salutation with my own 
hand of me Paul:’ final and special 
salutation, traced by the Apostle’s own 
hand, and followed by a solemn utter- 
ance of the one principle on which all 
turned, and of the judgment that 
awaited him who violated it. This 
salutation and the words that follow it 
authenticate the Epistle: comp. Col. 
iv. 18, 2 Thess. iii. 17. The rest was 
written by an amanuensis; comp. 
Rom. xvi. 22. It is not improbable 
that Rom. xvi. 25-27 is a similar au- 
tographic conclusion, and it is just 
possible that Gal. vi. 11-18 may be 
another example; but in this latter 
case, there seems good reason for 
thinking that St. Paul wrote the whole 
Epistle: see notes oz Gal. vi. 11. The 
gen. TlavAov is an appositional and 
epexegetic addition to the éuod involved 
in the eu: see examples of this idio- 
matic aad perfectly intelligible usage 
in Kithner, Gr. § 406. 3, Donalds. Gr. 
§ 407. n, and comp. Winer, Gr. § 59. 7. 

22. el Tis ov iret Tov Kuprov] ‘ 7f 
any one loveth not the Lord,’ ‘has no 
personal affection for him;’ the em- 
phasis falling on the negative (see Wi- 
ner, Gr. § 55.3. d), and the studiously 


Cuar. XVI. 22, 23. 


1 CORINTHIANS. 


341 


Tis ov direl tov Kupsov, tw avdfeua. Mapav ada. * Yapus 


22. Kupiov] So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Rev., Westc. and Hort, on very clearly 
preponderating authority: Mec. adds Incody Xpiordv. 
23. *Inood] So TZisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort: Rec. Lachm., Rev., "Inoov 


Xpiorov. 
great weight. 


Decision here is difficult, as the omitting authorities are few but of 
On the whole, as the appearance of the words in different order 


in two short and contiguous verses seems difficult to be accounted for, the 
shorter reading is apparently to be preferred. 


chosen Ae? (contrast Eph. vi. 24) 
marking the lower form of love which 
was probably openly expressed by many 
a Corinthian Christian, but was utterly 
negatived and reversed by the spirit of 
party and faction. On the distinction 
between the more personal giAew and 
the higher and more reverential &yamgv, 
see Trench, Syzoz. § 12, Cremer, Wor- 
terb. s.v., and on our love to God as 
being centred in our love to Christ, 
Rothe, Chr. Ethik, § 982, Vol. Iv. p. 
163 sq. (ed. 2). ro avabena] 
‘let him be anathema,’ — accursed, ‘ di- 
vine ire sacramentum ;’ comp. Rom. 
ix. 3, and see notes oz Gal.i. 8. There is 
no ground for taking this declaration 
in any modified sense in reference to 
excommunication: it solemnly pro- 
nounces that which the Lord at His 
coming will confirm and ratify. Hence 
the words that follow. On the less 
usual and later form #7w (James v. 12), 
see Winer, Gr.§ 14.2. It is found in 
some manuscripts of Plato, Repud/. 11. 
p- 361 D, but two good manuscripts give 
the usual éo7w ; see Kiihner, Gr. § 208. 
gi Mapav 406] ‘ Our Lord is 
come,’ Syriac, ‘dominus noster venit.’ 
There is some doubt whether the ter- 
minal letter 5 of the transliterated word 
Mapdy is the pronominal affix,—so 
making the word equivalent to ‘Our 
Lord’ (Chrys., ed. Bened.; one ms. 
omits nu@v), or whether it is the 4 
Jormativum, expressive of dignity and 
pre-eminence, —so making the word 
more nearly equivalent to ‘#e Lord:’ 


see Buxtorf, Zex. s.v. 7772. The 
meaning in either case is so nearly the 
same (Gesenius, in his Zew. s. v. x, 
renders the Rabbinic j= by ‘ dominus 
noster’) that we may retain the ren- 
dering of Syr. as most probably that 
which the Apostle intended to convey 
to his readers. The xm (7A0ev, Chrys.), 
does not refer to the incarnation, but 
with the future force of the tense in 
asseverations and assurances (see Ge- 
senius, Gramm. § 126. 4), is practically 
equivalent to the 6 Kupios éyyvts of Phil. 
iv. 5, and points to the quick coming 
of Him who will ratify the #rw davd0eua 
that has just been expressed. Hof- 
mann divides up the papavald so as to 
imply ‘thou art the Lord,’ but without 
any sufficient reason for departing from 
the traditional rendering of the words. 
Why the Aramaic language is here 
used cannot be explained. The most 
probable supposition would seem to 
be, that it was a kind of watchword in 
the early Church, expressive of the 
hope, and almost conviction, of the 
Lord’s speedy return: comp, Rev. xxii. 
20, where, as here, the benediction im- 
mediately follows. 

23. | Xdpis K.7.A] 6 Zhe grace of the 
Lord Jesus Christ be with you ;’ closing 
blessing, differing from that in Rom. 
Xvi. 20 (the Xpicrod, as here, is doubt- 
ful), 1 Thess. v. 28, 2 Thess. iii. 18, by 
the omission of Xpiorod and by the in. 
sertion of quay after Kupfov. In Gal. 
vi. 18, Phil. iv. 13,and Philem. 25, wera 
Tov mvevuatos is inserted before tuar; 


342 1 CORINTHIANS. 


Cuap. XVI. 23, 24. 
tod Kupiov “Incod pe? tov. %*% ayamrn mou pera TavTwV 
ipov év Xpwte *Inood. 


a 


24. év Xpiorg@ "Inood] So, without a terminal duny, Tisch., Treg. Westc. and 
Hfort. The word appears in Rec., [Lachm.], Rev., on external evidence certainly 
large in amount, yet apparently not preponderant, the probability of insertion 
being very great, and the cases in St. Paul’s Epistles in which the auqy is 


indisputably an insertion several in number. 


comp. 2 Tim. iv. 22. The shortest 
form is in Col. iv. 18, 1 Tim. vi. 21, 7 
xdpis ue” Su@v: comp. 2 Tim. iv. 22, 
Tit. iii. 15: notes oz 1 Thess. v. 28, 
but for wera cod in 1 Tim. vi. 21, read 
be? duar. 

24. Gyan pov KtT.A.] ‘ AZy love 
be with you all;’ second valedictory 
blessing, the optative e% being here 
understood as in the preceding verse: 
comp. 2 Tim. iv. 22, where there is a 
similar twofold parting benediction, 
but addressed to different persons; see 
notes zz loc. Chrysostom and Theoph. 
appear to understand éozi, and to take 


the clause as declaratory and equiva- 
lent to weTa mdvTwy iuay éyd; so also 
DeWette and Meyer. For this change 
of mood, however, there does not seem 
any sufficient reason. That the Apostle 
should close with the prayer that the 
love he has for them may be with 
them all, heal all divisions, and dissolve 
all factions, seems both natural and 
appropriate. This love is év Xpior@ 
*Inoot, — in Him as its element, and 
as the sphere of all its true activity. 
Such a love, as Chrysostom well says, 
ovdty avOpmmivoy exer ovde capkixdy, GAAL 
mvevpaTixn Tis eotl 51d kat opddpa yvnola. 


The Andover Press. 


ANDOVER PUBLICATIONS, 


EMBRACING 
VALUABLE COMMENTARIES AND BIBLICAL WORKS. 


W. F. DRAPER, PUBLISHER, 
ANDOVER, MASS. 


Full descriptive Catalogues free on application. 


ELLICOTT. 


Oritical and Grammatical Commentaries on St. Paul's Epistles, With 
Revised Translations. By Rt. Rev. Charles J. Ellicott, Bishop of 
Gloucester and Bristol. 8vo. 


Galatians. With an Introductory Notice by Prof. C. E. Stowe, $1.25. 
Ephesians, $1.25. Thessalonians, $1.25. 


Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, $1.75. Pastoral Epistles, $1.75, 
The whole Set in Two Volumes, bevelled edges, $6.75. 
FIRST CORINTHIANS. pp. 342. $2.'75. 


“It is the crowning excellence of these Commentaries that they are exactly what 
they profess to be — critical and grammatical, and therefore in the best sense of the 
term, exegetical. ..... His results are worthy of all confidence. He is more care- 
ful than Tischendorf, slower and more steadily deliberate than Alford, and more 
patiently laborious than any other living New Testament critic, with the exception, 
perhaps, of Tregelles.” — Prof. Stowe in the Introductory Notice. 

“To Bishop Ellicott must be assigned the first rank, if not the first place in the 
first rank, of English biblical scholarship. The series of Commentaries on the 
Pauline Epistle are in the highest style of critical exegesis.” — Methodist Quarterly. 

‘‘ His Commentaries are exactly what he styles them, critical and grammatical. 
His notes are brief, modest, unpretending, faithful, laborious, full of the most 
accurate and varied learning, without the taints of pedantry, and always expressed 
in language of the utmost clearness and simplicity.” —Bibliothecs: Sacra. 


HENDERSON. 


Commentaries, Critical, Philological, and Exegetical. Translated from the 
Original Hebrew. By E. Henderson, D.D. 8vo. 
The Book of the Twelve Minor Prophets. With a Biographical Sketch ot 


the Author by Professor E. P. Barrows. $3.00. 
Jeremiah and Lamentations, $2.25. Ezekiel, $1.75, 


“His Commentaries on the Minor Prophets and on Isaiah, are probably the best 
specimens of exegetical talent and learning which have ever appeared in England. 
ae The same diligence, learning, sobriety, and judiciousness appear in Ezekiel 
as characterize the learned author’s commentaries on Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the 
Minor Prophets.” — Bibliotheca Sacra. 

“ The learning, the sound judgment, and the earnest religious spirit of the author 
stamp a standard value on his commentaries.” — Baptist Quarterly. . 

“‘ Just such a work as a student needs, to get at the exact sense of the original, 
without any superfluous matter.’—American Presbyterian Review. 

“This is probably the best commentary extant on the Minor Prophets.” -- 
Christian Chronicle. 

H-9 


Books Published by W. F. Draper. 


LIGHTFOOT. 


St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. A Revised Text, with Introduction, 
Notes, and Dissertations. By J. B. Lightfoot, D.D., Hulsean Professor 
of Divinity, and Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. 8vo. $3.00 

“For a scholar’s use Dr. Lightfoot’s Commentary is invaluable. He and Bishop 

Ellicott worthily supplement eachother. The revised text is one of the best recent 


contributions to a complete text of the Greek New Testament, and the criticisms 
on the text are concise and to the point.” — American Presbyterian Review. 


“ Among the modern English commentaries on the New Testament Scriptures 
this appears to us to be the best. The critical dissertations, which form a leading 
feature of it, are in the highest degree valuable.”— New Englander. 


MURPHY. 


Critical and Exegetical Commentaries, with New Translations. By James 
G. Murphy, LL.D., T. C. D., Professor of Hebrew, Belfast. 8vo. 


Genesis. With a Preface by J. P. Thompson, D.D., New York. $3.00. 
Exodus, $2.50. Exodus, crown 8vo., $1.25. 
Leviticus, $2.25. Daniel, 12mo., $1.25. Psalms, $3.50. 


‘“The Commentaries of Murphy have many excellences. They are clear, dis- 
criminating, and comprehensive.” — Baptist Quarterly. 

“Thus far nothing has appeared in this country for half a century on the first 
two books of the Pentateuch so valuable as the present two volumes. [on Genesis 
and Exodus]. His style is lucid, animated, and often eloquent. His pages afford 
golden suggestions and key-thoughts.” — Methodist Quarterly. 

‘‘ Like the other Commentaries of Dr. Murphy, his Commentary on the Psalms 
is distinguished by the ease and perspicuity of its style, its freedom from pedantry, 
and the excellent religious spirit pervading it.” — Bibliotheca Sacra. 


PEROWNE. 


The Book of Psalms. A New Translation. With Introductions and Notes 
Explanatory and Critical. By J. J. Stewart Perowne, D.D., Fellow of 
Trinity College, Cambridge, and Canon of Llandaff. Reprinted from 
the Third English Edition. Two Volumes. 8vo. $6.75 


‘Tt comprises in itself more excellences than any other commentary on the 
Psalms in our language, and we know of no single commentary in the German 
language which, all things considered, is preferable to it.” — Baptist Quarterly. 


STUART. 


Critical and Exegetical Commentaries, with translations of the Text, by 
Moses Stuart, late Professor of Sacred Literature in Andover Theological 
Seminary. 12mo 

Romans, $1.75. Hebrews, $1.75. Proverbs, $1.50. 

Ecclesiastes, $1.25. 


The Commentaries on the Romans, Hebrews, and Ecclesiastes are edited and 
revised by Prof. R. D. C. Robbins. 


“His Commentary on the Romans is the most elaborate of all his works. .... 
Regarding it in all its relations, its antecedents and consequents, we pronounce it 
the most important Commentary which has appeared in this country on this Epistle. 

.- The Commentary on Proverbs is the last work from the pen of Prof. Stuart. 
Both this Commentary and the one preceding it, on Ecclesiastes, exhibit a mellow- 
ness of spirit which savors of the good man ripening for heaven. ..... In learning 
and critical acumen they are equal to his former works.” — Bibliotheca Sacra. 


Books Published by W. F. Draper. 


Buttmann. A Grammar of the New Testament Greek. B 
Alexander Buttmann, Authorized Translation [by Prof. J. Henry Thayer, 
D.D.]; with numerous additions and corrections by the Author. 8vo. pp. 


xx and 474, loth. $2.75 
From the Translator’s Preface. — “This Grammar is acknowledged to be 
‘he most important work which has appeared on N. T. Grammar since Winer’s. .... 


The Author’s general scheme of constantly comparing New Testament and Classic 
asage has been facilitated for every student, by giving running references through- 
ut the book to five or six of the most current grammatical works, among them the 
Grammars of Hadley, Crosby, Donaldson, and Jelf.” 


From the New Englander. — “One of the ablest books of its class which 
have been published. .... In some respects we think the plan adopted gives his 
work an incidental advantage as compared with Winer’s. It is a thoroughly 
scientific treatise, and one which will be helpful to students, both in connection 
with ,Winer’s and as discussing many points from a different or opposite point of 
view. 

From the Presbyterian Quarterly. — “Buttmann’s Grammar is more 
exclusively philological than that of Winer, it has less the character of a concise 
commentary. It is thoroughly scholarly, lucid, and compact; and admirably 
adapted to promote a sound knowledge of the Greek New Testament.” 


From the Baptist Quarterly.— “It is an indispensable, and perhaps the best, 
grammatical help to the critical student of the New Testament.” 


“Professor Thayer has performed his task — which has been a great deal more 
than that of a mere translator — with remarkable fidelity. It is doubtless the best 
work extant on this subject, and a book which every scholarly pastor will desire te 

ossess. Its usableness is greatly enhanced by its complete set of Indexes.’”’ — 
he Advance. 


Winer. 4 Gramma, of the Idiom of the New Testament: pre- 


pared as a Solid Basis for the Interpretation of the New Testament. By 
Dr. George Benedict Winer. Seventh Hdition, enlarged and improved. 
By Dr. Gottlieb Linemann, Professor of Theology at the University of 
Gottingen. Revised and Authorized Translation. 8vo. pp. 744. Cloth, 
$4.00; half goat, $5.75 


From the Princeton Review. —“ Prof. Thayer exhibits the most scholarly 
and pains-taking accuracy in all his work, especial attention being given to refer- 
ences and indexes, on which the value of such a work so much depends. The 
indexes alone fill eighty-six pages. The publishers work is handsomely done, and 
we cannot conceive that a better Winer should be for many years to come accessible 
to American scholars.” 


From the Bibliotheca Sacra. —“ Professor Thayer has introduced numer 
ous and important corrections of Masson’s translation, and has made the present 
edition of the Grammar decidedly superior to any of the preceding translations. 
He has made it specially convenient for the uses of an English student by noting 
on the outer margin of the pages the paging of the sixth and seventh German edi- 
tions, and also of Prof. Masson’s translation. Thus the reader of a commentary 
which refers to the pages of either of those volumes may easily find the reference 
by consulting the margin of this volume.”, 


From the Baptist Quarterly. — “Persons who have Mr. Masson’s trans- 
lation ought by all means, we think, to procure this new edition. .... If they make 
any considerable use of the great grammarian’s work, it will be unjust to him and 
to themselves if they should be content with slovenly, inadequate, obscure, and 
often erroneous rendering, where it is now possible to do so much better..... We 
trust that this admirable edition of a justly famous and surpassingly valuable work 
will gain extensive circulation, and that the study of it will begin afresh.” 

“The Seventh Edition of Winer, superintended by Liinemann (Leipz. 1867), we 
have at last, thanks to Professor Thayer, in a really accurate translation.” — Dr, 
Ezra Abbot, in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible (American ed.). 

K-4 


BOOKS PUBLISHED BY W. F. DRAPER. 
lO ete 2 Ph a pe 


FEULING. ®OKYAIAOY IIOIHMA NOY@ETIKON. Phocylidis 
Poema Admonitorium. Recognovit Brevibusque Notis Instruxit. 
J. B. Feuling, Ph. D., A.0.8.8., Professor Philologiae Compar. in Univer. 
Wisconsinensi. EditioPrima Americana. 16mo. pp.32. Paper, 30cts. 


“ The poem itself is in the original Greek, and is a collection of moral sentences 
after the manner of Phocylides, in hexameter verse, which was probably compiled 
some eight centuries after the poet’s death, though nobody knows when..... His 
Notes are valuable for the citations from Theognis, Epictetus, Simplicius, Sophocles, 
Euripides, Epicharneus, Terence, Cicero, Sallust, Horace, and Ovid ; some of which 
are rare, and all apposite.” — Springfield Republican. 


The same, translated by D. H. Goodwin. Paper, 30 cents. 





GARDINER. Biblical Works by Frederic Gardiner, D.D., 
Professor in the Berkeley Divinity School ; viz. 

A Harmony of the Four Gospels in Greek, according to the Text of 
Tischendorf, with a Collation of the Textus Receptus, and of the Texts 
of Griesbach, Lachmann, and Tregelles. Revised Edition, with an Appen- 
dix on the Principles of Textual Criticism. [See full title below]. 8vo. 
pp: lvi and 268; Appendix, pp. 64. $3.00 


The distinct features of the Harmony are: 1. The Critical Text. 2. Quota- 
tions from the Old Testament given in full. 3. A choice selection of parallel 
references. 4. Notes relating to harmony. 5. Careful chronological order of the 
Gospel narrative. 6. Clearness and perspicuity of arrangement. 7. A Synoptical 
Table of different harmonists, a new feature in this work. 8. The Appendix. 
(See the following title). 

From the Bibliotheca Sacra. — “It is an excellence of the work that the 
Greek is so accurate, evincing the most scrupulous care and thorough scholarship 
on the part of the editor.” 

From the Princeton Review. — “ The notes of the author are marked by 
scholarship and good sense. It is a convenient manual for the study of the Gospels, 
because upon one and the same page are the readings of the principal editions and 
manuscripts, together with the quotations made by the evangelists from the O. T.” 


“This book is the result of great research and utmost painstaking.”— Watchman. 


The Principles of Textual Criticism ; with a List of all the known 
Greek Uncials, and a Table representing graphically the Parts of the Text 
of the New Testament contained in each. [With the Canons of Eusebius 
added]. 8vo. pp.64, Paper covers, 50 cts.; Cloth, flexible, 75 cts. 

From the Baptist Quarterly. — “A trustworthy and useful help.” 


A Harmony of the Four Gospels in English, according to the 
Authorized Version; corrected by the best Critical Editions of the Orig- 
inal [Arranged in paragraphs]. 8vo. pp. xlivand 287. Cloth, $2.00 


From the Bibliotheca Sacra. —“ The Harmony in English is a reproduc- 
tion of the Harmony in Greek; no other changes being made than such as were 
required to fit the work for the use of the English reader.” 


Diatessaron. The Life of our Lord in the Words of the Gospels. 16mo. 
pp. viii and 259. $1.00 


This work combines in one continuous narrative the events of the Life of Christ 
as recorded by all the evangelists; and in the foot-notes references are made to 
passages in the Old Testament relating to Christ or quoted by him. 

From the Bibliotheca Sacra.— ‘It is well adapted to the convenienze of 
pastors, to the needs of teachers in the Bible-class and Sabbath-school, to the reli- 
gious instruction of families.” 


BOOKS PUBLISHED BY W. Ff. DRAPER. 
$$ F724 —— 


HALEY. An Examination of the Alleged Discrepancies of the 
Bible. By John W. Haley, M.A. With an Introduction by Alvah 
Hovey, D.D., Professor in the Newton Theological Institution. 12mo, 
pp. xii and 478, $1.25 


The author discusses nearly nine hundred cases of alleged discrepancies, 
gathered out of a large number of authors mainly rationalists and infidels. He 
has classified these as far as possible, set them over against each other that their 
full force may be seen, and then proposed solutions for them —solutions not 
always original but gathered from all the critics and commentators of note. It 
is the only book which covers the whole field, emphatically a commentary on the 
“hard places” of Scripture. Just the thing for Sunday-school teachers and pupils. 


From the Presbyterian Quarterly. — “It is very convenient to have all 
these instances collected in such a condensed way, and presented in so clear a 


style and so good a method. The book is honest, candid, and painstaking. It 
will be found useful to all students of the sacred volume.” 

From Professor Edwards A. Park. — “I do not know any volume which 
gives to the English reader such a compressed amount of suggestion and instruc- 
tion on this theme as is given in this volume.” 

“ A book so costly in great qualities, yet so cheap and accessible to all; one so 
scholarly and yet so simple and usable ; one so creditable to its author, and yet so 
modestly set forth, does not every day appear. As an example of thorough and 
painstaking scholarship, as a serviceable handbook for all Bible students, and as a 
popular defence of revealed truth, it will take high rank, and fill an important 
place which up to this time has been conspicuously vacant.” — Congregationalist. 


HALEY. Supplicium Aeternum: The Hereafier of Sin. What 
it will be; with answers to certain Questions and Objections. By Rev. 
John W. Haley, M.A. 16mo, pp, viii and 102, 75 cents. 


“An able book, containing a clear dispassionate discussion of a momentous 
subject. It stands unique in a field of its own.” — Independent. 
“Mr. Haley has set forth the teaching of God’s word in a very clear light, and 
shows how it harmonizes with the conclusions of experience, science, and philoso- 
hy.” — National Baptist. 
py I 
“ A clear, calm, accurate presentation of the subject.” — The Golden Rule. 


HALEY. The Bookof Esther. A New Translation, with Critical Notes, 
Excursuses, Maps and Plans, and Illustrations. By the Lowell Hebrew 
Club. Edited by Rev. John W. Haley, M.A. 8vo. pp. 200. $1.50 


The Lowell Hebrew Club consisted of Revs. Owen Street, J. W. Haley, Wm. 
P. Alcott and John M. Greene, who were assisted in the preparation of this book on 
critical points by Prof. G. Frederick Wright, Dr. Selah Merrill and a number of 
eminent scholars in Great Britain, Germany, and our own country. A general 
Introduction by Dr. Street, on the date, style, and claims of the Book of Esther, 
occupies about twenty pages, followed by a wholly new translation and notes of 
sixty pages, the joint work of the Club, and then the Excursuses occupy about 
ninety pages, and treat of the following topics; Persian Words and Names. 
Topography of Buildings. Pavement and Components, Letters and Posts of 
the Ancients. Early Modes of Execution. The Jews in Exile. Signet Rings 
and Seals. The Massacre. Fasting. The Golden Sceptre. Fate of Royal 
Favorites. Couriers. Coursers. Tribute. The Septuagint Esther. 

Tue I_tusrrations, Maps, etc., number about a dozen. 


“Tf any one of our readers desire a fresh and exhaustive ‘help’ to the study of 
the Book of Esther, let him at once obtain a copy of this work.” — Old Test. Student. 


“A peculiarly valuable addition to our exegetical literature.”— Zion’s Herald. 

“It is extremely well done, full of learning, and at the same time rich in fruit- 
ful suggestions.” —New York Observer. 

“Tr is scholarly, able, and devout. The critical work is thoroughly well 
performed.” — Indiana Baptist. 


BOOKS PUBLISHED BY W. F. DRAPER. 
SAR eg eee eee 


SHEDD. Works and Translations by William G. T. Shedd, 
formerly Professor of Ecclesiastical History in Andover 
Theological Seminary. 


Discourses and Essays. 12mo. pp. 324, $1.25 
Contents. — The Method and Influence of Theological Studies ; The True Nature 
of the Beautiful, and its Relation to Culture; The Characteristics and Impor- 
tance of a Natural Rhetoric ; The Nature and Influence of the Historic Spirit ; 
The Relation of Language and Style to Thought; The Doctrine of Original 
Sin; The Doctrine of Atonement. 
From the Presbyterian Quarterly. — “ Papers like these are worthy the 
deepest study and the warmest admiration of the best minds.” 

Eloquence a Virtue; or, Outlines of a Systematie Rhetoric. 
Translated from the German of Dr. Francis Theremin. With an Intro- 
ductory Essay [by Prof. Shedd]. Revised Edition. 12mo, pp.216. $1.00 

From the Princeton Review. — “The doctrine of the treatise is, that elo- 
quence is distinguished from philosophy, poetry, and all other forms of expressed 
thought in having for its object to move men to action, and that this is accom- 
plished by exciting their active, i.e. their moral faculties, etc..... The subject is 
ably unfolded in this compact yet thorough treatise. 

From the Bibliotheca Sacra. — “ The Introductory Essay which Professor 

Shedd has prefixed to this valuable treatise, is elaborate, vigorous, impressive.” 


A Manual of Church History. By Henry E. F. Guericke, Doctor and 
Professor of Theology in Halle. Translated by Prof. Shedd. 

Ancient Church. Comprising the First Six Centuries. [With a Preface by 
the Translator, a Chronological Table, an Index, anda Series of Questions. } 
8vo. pp. xvi and 483, $2.75 


From the Evangelical Review. — “ Perhaps it would be difficult in the same 
space to find so much matter, or so complete a history during the period of which 
it treats, as is given in this Manual. The volume is one of the most valuable of its 
kind in the department of Ecclesiastical History.” 


Medieval Church. (From A.D. 590 to 1078). pp. viii and 160, $1,25 
This portion of Guericke’s Church History continues the account down to A.D. 
1073, when Hildebrand ascended the Papal chair as Gregory VII. It includes, the 
spread of Christianity among the Gothic, Scandinavian, and Sclavic races; the 
distracting controversies respecting the two Wills of Christ, Image Worship, and 
the Sacrament of the Supper; and the great schism between the East and West. 
The Confessions of St. Augustine. Edited, with an Introduction, 
by William GT. Shedd. 12mo. pp. xxxvi and 417, Half turkey or 
half calf, gilt edges, $2.50; cloth, bevelled edges, $1.25 
From the Bibliotheca Sacra.— “A beautiful edition of a precious work.” 


From the Evangelical Quarterly.— “ This beautiful edition of a theological 
classic is desirable on account of the careful comparison of the whole work with 
the Latin text, and the addition of explanatory notes.” 


“ Prof. Shedd’s Introduction is a masterly essay, which of itself is a volume for 
attentive reading. It ought to be read before the book is begun. Thorough, 
searching, and discriminating, beyond the facts it communicates, its instruction 
and hints are suggestive and invaluable.” — New York Observer. 


South Church, Andover. See Historicat Manvat. 


SMITH. Select Sermons of the Rev. Worthington Smith, D.D., 
Late President of the University of Vermont. With a Memoir of his 
Life, by Rev. Joseph Torrey, D.D., Professor of Intellectual and Moral 
Philosophy in Burlington College. 12mo, pp. xi and 368. $1.25 

From the Bibliotheca Sacra.—“ They [his Sermons] are specimens of a 


sermonizing that was uniformly excellent. In this respect they are models for 
preachers.” 


BOOKS PUBLISHED BY W. F. DRAPER. 
—_—_ — __ 18 
PARK. Discourses on some Theological Doctrines as related 
to the Religious Character. By Edwards A Park, D.D. 8vo. $2.50, 


These discourses (fourteen in number) were preached during the years when 
the Author was delivering his theological lectures. They were designed to exhibit 
some practical relations of certain theological doctrines discussed in those lectures, 
and to show that the doctrines were to be revered for their use in religious expe- 
rience as well as for their harmony with sound reason and divine inspiration. The 
discourses were not intended to be theological or doctrinal in the full and distinc- 
tive meaning of those terms; neither were they designed to be scientific. They 
avoid the technicalities and logical trains of argument needed in the more formal 
lectures. They are discourses of great power and richness, and were listened to 
in the Seminary chapel and elsewhere in the churches with intense interest and 
delight. They are such sermons as once heard are never forgotten. 

“* After carefully reading these sermons a second time with increased interest, 
it does not seem to us an undue estimate of them to say that this volume of 
discourses holds much the same place in the recent literature of the pulpit that 
Michael Angelo’s statue of Moses holds in modern sculpture.” — Prof. F. W. Fish 
in Current Discussions in Theology, Vol. III. p. 309. 1885. 


“They are strong and fine examples of the most intellectual, the most ‘evan- 
gelical,’ the most oratorical of American sermons. Pure doctrine in brilliant 
forms, —this is the essence of pulpit discourse with Professor Park..... The 
American religious public, whether holliing Professor Park’s points of view or 
not, cannot be too thankful for this volume.” — The Literary World. 


“ As an exposition by one of the ablest theologians of the age, and one who has 
the power of expressing his views in clear and forcible language, they will be read 
with deep interest throughout the church.” — The Observer. ; 

From the British Quarterly. — “For the last thirty years the tradition of 
Dr. Park’s preaching has placed him in the very foremost rank of the preachers 
of this generation.” 

“They are unequalled, we think, by any of their kind in “scope and wealth,” 
in cogency, affluence, beauty, and power..... They are fine specimens of philos- 
ophy, logic, and rhetoric applied to theology — perhaps the finest ever published in 
this land.” — Christian Union. 

“To have had the opportunity to hear discourses like those on the ‘ Eternity of 
God,’ and ‘I shall be satisfied when I awake in thy likeness,’ was a most memor- 
able event in some lives.”” — Missionary Herald. 

*“ As an exposition by one of the ablest theologians of the age, and one who has 
the power of expressing his views in clear and forcible language, they will be read 
with deep interest throughout the church.” — N. Y. Observer. 

“‘ The volume is one of solid value, from the preface to the last note.”— Watchman. 


Memorial Addresses. By Prof. Edwards A. Park. 
The Life and Serviccs of Professor SB. B. Edwards, 1852; Samuel Harvey 





Taylor, LL.D. 1871. Paper, each, 20 cents. 
Professor Moses Stuart, 1852; Samuel C. Jackson, D.D. 1878. Paper, 
each, 25 cents, 


“Professor Park of Andover, publishes nothing that is not worth reading, and 
re-reading. To no man in America could the saying be more fittingly applied, 
that he tonches nothing which he does not turn to gold. He illumines and adorns 
whatever subject he treats. In the intellectual and spiritual analysis and portraiture 
of a great character, Prof. Park has amazing power, subtilty, and skill.””—Advance. 


——— On the Duties of the New England Clergy, delivered before the Mas- 
sachusetts Pastoral Association. 1834. 15 cents. 


Phocylidis. See Frevtine. 


Plutarchus de sera Numinis Vindicta ; Plutarch on the Delay of 
the Deity in the Punishment of the Wicked. With Notes by H. B. 
Hackett, Professor of Biblical Literature in Newton Theological Insti- 
tution. 12mo, pp.172, (Remainder of the edition, covers faded). 60 cts. 


ANDOVER PUBLICATIONS. 





Sent by Mail, post-paid, on receipt of the Sums afixed, 


Angel, The, over the Right Shoulder, #0.40 
APPLETON, JESSE, D.D., Works, 2v., 3.00 
Augustinism and Pelagianism, 1.25 
Bascom, Prof J., Political Economy, 1.50 
BATEMAN’S Questions on Kiihner’s 
Greek Grammar. By S. H. Taylor, .40 
Beuttmann’s Grammar of New Test. 
Greek (Prof. Thayer’s translation), 2.76 
CaRLYLgE, T., Latter-Day Pamphlets, 1.00 
CARY, Prof.GEO L. An Introduction 
to the Greek of the New Testament. .75 
CHALYBAEUS’S History of Speculative 
Philosophy, from Kant to Hegel, 
Classical Study; Its Usefulness, etc. 
Twenty-two Essays; ed. S. H. Taylor, 1.50 
Codex Vaticanus, Mai’s edition, 8.00 
DoEDERLEIN’S Latin Synonymes, 1.25 
Dorney’s Contemplations and Letters,1.00 
Eliicott, Bishop C. J., Commenta- 
ries, Critical and Grammatical, viz. 
Galatians, 1.25 | Thessalonians, 1.25 
Ephesians, 1.25 | Pastoral Epistles, 1.75 
Pealiplana, Colossians, Philemon, 1.75 
The Set in 2 vols., 6.75 
Lectures on the Life of Our Lord, 1.50 
ERSKINE, THomaAs, Internal Evidence 
for the Truth of Revealed Religion, .60 
Gardiner, Prof. EF. A Harmony of 
the Four Gospels in Greek, accord- 
ing to the Text of Tischendorf, with 
a collation of other Texts, 8.00 
Harmony of the Gospels in English, 2. 
The Life of our Lord in the Words of 
the Gospels — collated, 1.00 
Principles of Interpretation, 75 
GoopDRICcH. 
HALEY, JOHN W., M.A. 
Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, 1.25 
The Hereafter of Sin, Whatit willbe, .75 
Tur Book or EsTHER. By a Hebrew 
Club. Edited by J. W. Haley, M.A., 1.50 
Harapzis, Prof. SAMUEL, The Kingdom 
of Christ on Earth, 1 
Haven, Prof. JosrrpH. Studies in 
Philosophy and Theology, 


Hebrew-English Psalter, 
Mienderson,£E.,D D.,Commentaries, 


1.00 


Minor Prophets, 8.00 | Ezekiel, 1.75 
Jeremiah and Lamentations, 2.25 


Hitt, THomas, D.D., LL.D. Natural 
Sources of Theology, paper 60c, cloth .80 
Howe, Jonn, Redeemer’s Tears, etc., 1.00 
Hymns and Choirs. By Profs. Park 
and Phelps, and Dr. Furber, 1.25 
Inmer, Dr. A. Hermeneutics of the 
New Testament, Prof. Newman’s tr. 1.50 
Jones, A. D. Elements of the Hebrew 
Language, 1 
KELLY, W. B., Proverbs of all Nations, 
Compared and Illustrated, 
KENNEDY, W.S., Messianic Prophecy 
and Life of Christ, 1.25 
LIGHTFOOT, J.B., D.D., Commentary 
onGalatians. With Dissertations,etc. 3.00 
McCURDY, Prof. JAMES F. Aryo- 
Semitic Speech. 2.00 
MITCHELL, Prof. E.C., 
Vrinciples of HebrewGrammar. pap. .15 





Send for a Descriptive Catalogue, with special terms to Ministers and Theological Students. 


Monop, ADOLPHE, Discourses on St. 
Paul,Translated by J. H. Myers, D.D. .90 


MORRISON,C.R. Proofs of Christ’s Res- 
urrection froma Lawyer’sStandpoint,1.25 


Murphy, J.G., Commentaries, 


Genesis, 3.00 | Leviticus, 2.25 
Exodus, 2.50 | Psalms, 38.50 
The Book of Daniel. 12mo. 1.25 


Park, Prof. E. A., 
Discourses on some Theological Doc- 
trines. 8vo. pp. 400. 2.50 
Memorial Discourses, on Prof. B. B. 
Edwards, Dr. S. H. Taylor,each, .20 
Prof.M. Stuart, Dr.S.C.Jackson,each, .25 
PEROWNE, J. J. STEWART, D.D., 
The Book of Psalms. 2 vols. 
PHELPS, Prof. A., The New Birth, 
Ministerial Culture. paper, 10 
Plutarchus de Sera Numinis Vindicta. 
Prof. Hackett’s ed. 3 
PonD, Enocu,D.D., PastoralTheology, 1.50 


PUNCHARD’S Congregationalism,2d ed. .60 


REUBELT, Person of Christ, 1.50 
Riggs, Dr. Elias, Suggested Emen- 
dations of the Old Testament, 1.00 


Sugzested Modifications of the Re- 
vised Version of the NewTestament, .75 
RUSSELL, Prof.Wm., Pulpit Elocution, 1.25 
SCHODDE, Rev. GEO. H. The Book of 
Enoch: From the Ethiopic; Notes, 1.75 
Shedd, Prof. W. G.T., Works, viz. 
Discourses and Essays, ik 
Guericke’s Ancient Church History, 2.75 
Guericke’s Mediaeval Ch. History, 1.25 
Theremin’s Rhetoric, 1.00 
Augustine’s Confessions, 1.25 
SmiTH, WORTHINGTON, D.D., Sermons, 
and Memoir by Prof. Torrey, 1 
SmytTu, Prof. E. C., Value of the Study 
of Ch. Hist. in Ministerial Ed. paper, .25 
Stuart, Moses, Commentaries, 
Romans, 1.75 | Hebrews, 1.75 
Ecclesiastes, 1.25 | Proverbs, 1.50 
History and Defence of O.T. Canon, 1.50 
Miscellanies: Letters to Dr. Chan- 
ning, etc., a 
Swain, LEonaARD, D.D., God’s Owner- 
ship of the Sea, paper, 25 
*TAYLOR, Dr. S. H., A Memorial of, 1.75 
THAYER, ALEX. The Hebrews and 
the Red Sea. [With a Map]. -80 
Theologia Germanica,Prof.Stowe’sed., 1.25 
Tyrer, Prof. W. S., Theology of the 
Greek Poets, 1.50 
VIBBERT’S Guide to Reading Hebrew, 1.00 
Whately, Archbishop, Essays, viz. 
Difficulties in Writings of St. Paul, 1.60 
Peculiarities of Christian Religion, 1.50 
Historic Doubts, paper, 25c.; cloth, .40 
WINER. GEO. B., D.D., Grammar of 
Idiom of the New Testament. Prof. 
Thayer’s translation, with 3 Indexes, 4.00 
Wonder-Working Providence, W. F. 
Poole’sed. [Special Terms.] 10.00 
WRIGHT, Prof. G. F. The Logic of 
Christian Evidences. ; 1. 
Studies in Science and Religion, 1.50 


SwoxtrA3ov TMolnua Novdetixdy, Prof. 
Feuling’s ed., paper, roe 


THE BrIBLioTHEOA SacRA, first forty volumes; sets, single volumes, and numbers. 


r¥—3, 


W. F. DRAPER. Publisher, Andover, Mass. 


a 


a 
y Mit ’ ry} 


vu 


(Arie 
¢ 








we 


ri) 


‘a hy oT 


het 
an | 
MeL ene 
htt OU ty 
acts ’ 


] 














